Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.58 seconds)Section 54F in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987
27. Further in the case of Smt. Padmavathi Jaikrishna v. Addl.
CIT, 166 ITR 176 (SC), it was held as follows:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Jagmohandas J. Kapadia on 15 February, 1966
"12. The borrowings were not made to make investments and
earn interest from them. The borrowed amounts kept in short-
term deposits undoubtedly yielded interest. The interest income
from such deposits was from such deposits only and was
incidental to and was the result of the same. The interest income
was totally independent of the borrowings. As pointed out by
the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jagmohandas J. Kapadia
[1966] 61 ITR 663 at page 669 in interpreting the corresponding
section 12(2) of the 1922 Act relied on by the ITO also, the
expenditure incurred must be for the purpose of making or
earning the income; which is not the position in the present case.
In examining the claim, the incongruities and hardship caused,
cannot obviously blur our approach. From this it necessarily
follows that the conclusions of the ITO concurred with by the
Commissioner are unexceptionable.
Eastern Investments Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 4 May, 1951
If the debentures had been paid for in cash by the
same party, no objection could have been taken to
allowing the interest amount to be deducted. In principle,
there appears to us no difference, if instead of paying in
cash the payment of the price is in the share of giving over
shares of the company, when the transaction is not
challenged on the ground of fraud and is approved by the
Court in the reorganisation of the capital of the company.
In our opinion, therefore, the ground on which the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court
disallowed the claim of the assessee is not sound." (p. 7)
What was paid by the assessee in that case was interest or an
expenditure in respect of its income and it was on that basis, the
Supreme Court found that the case attracted section 12(2). But,
that is not the position in the present. In my view the true ratio
of this case far from supporting the case of the petitioner,
supports the case of the revenue.
Seth R. Dalmia vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 January, 1971
In Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 644, the Supreme
Court was again dealing with a case under section 12(2) on
expenditure incurred in the acquisition of shares by the assessee
as such.
Traco Cable Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 September, 1981
In Traco Cable Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 503, a
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was dealing with a
case of receipts or interest paid on share deposits and the
ITA No.692/Bang/2021
Page 19 of 22
deductions claimed by the assessee on them under section 57(iii)
The Division Bench speaking through Isaac, J., rejected the
same in these words: