Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.89 seconds)Section 234 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 April, 1990
In this regard reference was made to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (52) Taxman 260 (= 185 Income Tax Reports 96). The view expressed was that the expenditure has to be actually existing liability expenditure which is deductible for income tax purposes, but merely putting aside the money which may become expenditure on happening of an event is not an expenditure.
Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, M.P. Bhopal ... on 8 October, 1985
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue while relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sheraton Apparels v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2002) 256 ITR 20 and of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P. and Anr. [1985] 156 ITR 585 argued that taking into consideration the correct definition of books of accounts, the provision made by the assessed is an expenditure which would be incurred on happening of an event and as such the same cannot be treated as a business expenditure within the ambit and scope of the provisions of section 37 of the Act. In the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though partly allowed the appeal of the assessed on other counts, however, rejected the contention of the assessed in relation to the deduction on provision made on account of the warranty clause as not 'expenditure' and therefore, disallowing the deduction claimed.
Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 9 August, 2000
In our opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers (supra) has a direct bearing on the issue in controversy before us. Dealing with the preposition whether the assessed would be allowed to deduction in the accounting year, although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date, the liability is to be treated in the present time and would or would not be a contingent liability, the Court held as under :-
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation, ... on 20 April, 1967
In the case of CIT v Gemini Cashew Sales Corpn. (1967) 65 ITR 643 (SC) it is held that
"where obligation itself is purely contingent, question of estimating its present value will not arise- Broadly stated, the present value on commercial valuation of money to become due in future, under a definite obligation, will be a permissible outgoing or deduction in computing the taxable profits of a trader even if in certain conditions the obligation may cease to exist because of forfeiture of the right. Where, however, the obligation of the trader is purely contingent, no question of estimating its present value may arise, for, to be a permissible outgoing or allowance, there must in the year of account be a present obligation capable of commercial valuation."