Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
"15. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997]
225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the
Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the
Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that
ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the
purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is incurred.
However, some exceptional cases can justify spreading the expenditure and
claiming it over a period of ensuing years. It is important to note that in that
judgment, it was the assessee who wanted spreading the expenditure over a
period of time and had justified the same.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 145A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Seco Tools India Private Ltd.,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 29 November, 2017
17. We also found that the CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Madras Industrial Investment
Corporation (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra). However, the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. 372 ITR 605 has been
subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1