Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Industrial Finance Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs Joint/Additional Commissioner Of ... on 24 February, 2006 cites

M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997

39. The only ground taken by the revenue in this appeal is that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 32.98 crore of bonds issue expenses. In fact the revenue's appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) to rectify under Section 154 his earlier order dated 30-11-1999. During the course of appellate proceedings the asses-see submitted that its claim of deduction of Rs. 144,77,62,262 comprised of two amounts viz, discount Rs. 116,89,17,590 and bonds issue expenses of Rs. 27,88,44,672. The assessee submitted that in the original order the sum of Rs. 27,88,44,672 had been wrongly disallowed. After consideration of the matter, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that there was error in his earlier order, in as much as, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT apply to discount and not to the issue expenses, such as commission, brokerage, administrative expenses etc. The learned Assessing Officer held that these expenses were entirely of revenue nature and were, therefore, allowable as deduction. The learned CIT (Appeals), therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the Bond issue expenses pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 in full.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

Kerala Financial Corpn vs Cit on 12 May, 1994

14. After a careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act,viz., 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia)(c), 36(1)(viii) and 41(4A), weare of the view that the argument of the learned Assessing Officer that the sum of Rs. 5,000 lakhs transferred by the assessee from special reserve account to provision for bad and doubtful loans account, in effect meant reduction or reversal of special reserve created by the assessee under Section 46(1)(viii) should be rejected. It is because prior to assessment year 1998-99 the law obliged the assessee to create special reserve and there is no further requirement for the retention of the amount of reserve thus created. Amendment to the provisions of Section 46(1)(viii) as well as insertion of the new provision of Section 41(4A) by the Finance Act, 1997 are w.e.f. 1-4-1998 ie., assessment year 1998-99 only and the same cannot be given retrospective effect. This is the view held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala Finance Corpn. (supra), whereby the Hon'ble High Court have reversed the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Addl. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 360 (Coch.). Respectfully following, the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court, we hold that the deduction to the assessee under Section 46(1)(viii) cannot be curtailed on the ground of transfer of the sum of Rs. 5,000 lakhs from special reserve account.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 141 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1   2 3 Next