Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.38 seconds)
Foot On Shoes,, Agra vs Assessee on 8 May, 2013 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Baroda vs Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. on 23 March, 1981

In order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, at the relevant point of time and in the light of the judgments in Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC); CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC); Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC); Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [1976] 119 ITR 817 (Bom); CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K), the following conditions should be satisfied: (i)The expenditure in question should not be of the nature described under the specific provisions of sections 30 to 36 and 80VV (section 80VV was omitted with effect from April 1, 1986); (ii)The expenditure should not be of the nature of capital expenditure; (iii)It should not be a personal expenditure; and (iv) The expenditure should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. It is thus clear that conditions at (i), (ii) and (iii) above are negative conditions whereas the condition at (iv) above is a positive condition. If the expenditure satisfies the negative conditions, it has to satisfy the positive condition in order to be eligible for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, section 37(1) allows deduction of any "expenditure"
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 93 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Chenab Forest Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 February, 1974

In order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, at the relevant point of time and in the light of the judgments in Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC); CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474 (SC); Sassoon J. David and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261 (SC); Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [1976] 119 ITR 817 (Bom); CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K), the following conditions should be satisfied: (i)The expenditure in question should not be of the nature described under the specific provisions of sections 30 to 36 and 80VV (section 80VV was omitted with effect from April 1, 1986); (ii)The expenditure should not be of the nature of capital expenditure; (iii)It should not be a personal expenditure; and (iv) The expenditure should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. It is thus clear that conditions at (i), (ii) and (iii) above are negative conditions whereas the condition at (iv) above is a positive condition. If the expenditure satisfies the negative conditions, it has to satisfy the positive condition in order to be eligible for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Thus, section 37(1) allows deduction of any "expenditure"
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

The burden of proving that a particular expenditure has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business so that the assessee may be entitled to claim deduction is on the assessee. This position is well settled by the judgments of the apex court in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 17. The mere object of incurring expenditure is not decisive whether it is of a capital nature or revenue nature. Therefore, the onus is on the assessee to prove, inter alia, that the item of expenditure in question for admissibility to deduction is not in the nature of capital expenditure. Further, mere payment by itself would not entitle the assessee to deduction of the said expenditure unless the same was proved to be paid for commercial considerations. The onus of proof is always upon the assessee. It cannot be said that even if the taxpayer does not produce any evidence in support of the claim for deduction, the Assessing Officer himself independently is to collect evidence and decide that the deduction claimed is baseless having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee, as the Tribunal seems to think in the present case. It is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular allowance is justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document
1   2 3 Next