Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 43 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (No. 2) on 15 March, 1979
In the case of
Mohan Meakins Brewaries Ltd v CIT, 227 ITR 878 (HP), it was
held that loss in aspect of Milk plant discarded and written off
during the previous year was not allowable u/s 45. The alternate
plea of the appellant that the capital loss be allowed to be carried
forward is thus rejected. Grounds 1 & 2 are dismissed."
Section 45 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs C.I.T,New Delhi on 5 January, 2011
iii) Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ld. Vs. CIT, 228 CTR 278 (Del)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. on 1 November, 2001
ii) CIT Vs. Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. 173 CTR 20 (Guj)/255 ITR
345(Guj)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai ... vs M/S Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd on 10 August, 2007
36. AR of the assessee submitted that the items replaced are part of
the machinery, and therefore, allowable as revenue expenditure. These
items cannot be used independently. The expenditure was incurred for
efficient functioning of plant, and not for acquiring of any new asset.
The expenditure was incurred for replacement of old items, which were
worn out. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., 293 ITR 201
(SC) and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the basic
test whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, was to
find out whether the expenditure was incurred to preserve and maintain
an already existing asset and the expenditure must not be to bring a
new asset into existence or to obtain a new advantage.