Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)

Habib Hussein vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 August, 1962

had to consider the identical question whether interest paid on borrowed capital which is used for the acquisition of the machinery can be included in "actual cost" to the assessee under Section 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act. The English decisions on the point, the Bombay decision in Habib Hussein's case and the Calcutta decision in Standard Vacuum Refining Co.'s case, were all noticed.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Standard Vacuum Refining Co. Of India ... on 18 August, 1965

had to consider the identical question whether interest paid on borrowed capital which is used for the acquisition of the machinery can be included in "actual cost" to the assessee under Section 10(2)(vi) of the 1922 Act. The English decisions on the point, the Bombay decision in Habib Hussein's case and the Calcutta decision in Standard Vacuum Refining Co.'s case, were all noticed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Mithlesh Kumari on 5 February, 1973

The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mithlesh Kumari, [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Delhi) has also taken the view that interest on borrowed capital is part of the actual cost to the assessee for the purpose of claiming development rebate. It is unfortunate that the Andhra Pradesh High. Court decision was not referred to either by the Calcutta High Court in its later judgment or by the Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 47 - Full Document
1   2 Next