Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mohanlal Bhagwati Prosad on 26 November, 1991
In CIT v. Mohanlal Bhagwati Prosad , the court held that Explanations 2 and 3 of section 40(b) of the Act are clarificatory in nature, and this was evident from the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes; hence the Explanations were given retrospective effect by the court. It should be noted here that a literal reading of section 40(b) resulted in treating every kind of payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm, to the partners, as not deductible in computing the taxable income of the firm. This ignored bona fide payments and the different capacities in which the partners may receive the payment. In fact, this literal meaning of the words Resulted in an unwarranted artificial situation and, therefore, when the Explanations were added to explain the real situation, the court thought it proper to apply those Explanations as giving the true meaning of section 40(b) all along. In fact, one of us (K. S. Bhat J.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works on 27 September, 1991
is a party to a similar decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Words [1992] 193 ITR 77.
Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 September, 1989
In this regard, the context, background and history of the legislation may be looked into - See Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, , wherein the Supreme Court has analysed the entire law on the point."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs T.S.P.L.P. Chidamebaram Chettiar ... on 21 January, 1971
In CIT v. P. Doraiswamy Chetty [1990] 183 ITR 559 (SC), the question was whether the husband was entitled to carry forward the wife's share of the loss when the Act includes the wife's share as the 'income' in the income of the husband. The court held that the husband was entitled to carry forward such a loss, though during the relevant years, there was no specific provision. The court posed the question at page 565 :
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
40. Keshavji Ravji and. Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1 is also a decision of the Supreme Court. One of the questions that arose for consideration was whether Explanation 1 added to section 40(b) of the Act in the year 1984 serves as the parliamentary exposition of the true purport of section 40(b) or whether the said Explanation brought about a change in its meaning. This was considered at page 18 thus :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Patel Bros. on 7 February, 1966
The Bench followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Patel Bros.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha ... vs Shah Nanji Nagsi on 7 October, 1977
and Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 424 and of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi [1979] 116 ITR 292 and upheld the claim of the assessed to deduct such expenditure on customary courtesy extended to the customers, as not falling within the description of "entertainment expenditure". Therefore, the expenditure did not fall within the bar enacted in section 37(2B).
M/S. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab & ... on 5 October, 1964
This court also referred to an earlier decision of this court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 544.