Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.93 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 9 August, 2000
The same
principle is laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of
Bharat Earth Movers (supra). In that case the assessee company
had formulated leave encashment scheme.
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
It was held, following
the judgment in Metal Box Company of India (supra), that the
provision made by the assessee for meeting the liability incurred
under leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement
earned by the employees, was entitled to deduction out of gross
receipts for the accounting year during which the provision is made
for that liability. The principle which emerges from these decisions
is that if the historical trend indicates that large number of
sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and in
the past if the facts established show that defects existed in some
of the items manufactured and sold then the provision made for
warranty in respect of the army of such sophisticated goods would
be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under Section 37 of
3
0
the 1961 Act. It would all depend on the data systematically
maintained by the assessee. It may be noted that in all the
impugned judgments before us the assessee(s) has succeeded
except in the case of Civil Appeal Nos.
M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
We
may add that the above principle of commercial accounting in
Metal Box Company of India (supra) also find place in the
judgment of this Court in the case of Madras Industrial
Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax -
(1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC), in which the Court has explained the
meaning of the word "expenditure" in Section 37 of the 1961 Act.