Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.30 seconds)Section 22 in M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
21. Turning to the case in hand in the light of ratio laid down by the aforesaid judgment, we find that the assessee has claimed a spread over of the premium payable on redemption over the period of redemption of debentures but the lower authorities have disallowed the claim of the assessee after holding that being a contingent liability, it can be allowed only in the year of redemption. Now, this controversy has been set at rest by the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court that the premium on debentures shall be spread over the period of redemption of debentures and the proportionate claim should be allowed in each and every year. Following the aforesaid ratio, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee.
National Engineering Industries Ltd., ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 June, 2001
In the case of National Engineering Industries v. CIT (supra) following the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. (supra); their Lordships have categorically held that there is no distinction between a discount and a premium, The result in both is that if something over and above the face value and the specified interest is paid, the accounting procedure is one case being by way of preliminary deduction from the mentioned amount, and the accounting procedure in the other case being an addition at the end over the prescribed and mentioned face value amount. The extra premium is to be spread over all the years which are occupied between the date of issue and the date of ultimate redemption.
Universal Cables Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 March, 2000
20. Ordinarily, revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, must be allowed in its entirely in the year in which it is incurred. It cannot be spread over a number of years even if the assessee has written it off in his books, over a period of years. However, the facts may justify an assessee, who has incurred expenditure in particular year to spread and claim it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. Issuing debentures is an instance where, although the assessee has incurred the liability to pay the discount in the year of issue of debentures, the payment is to secure a benefit over a number of years. There is a continuing benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures. This judgment of the apex Court was consistently followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Universal Cables Ltd. v. CIT and National Engineering.