Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)
Additional Commissioner Of ... vs J. & S. P. Ltd. on 24 May, 1984 cites

Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980

14. Mr. Wazir Singh referred to Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT , on the submission that was a parallel clause. That was a case in which loom hours of members of the Indian Jute Mills Association were restricted. The agreement also provided for the transfer of loom hours to others. A sum of Rs. 2,03,255 was claimed as revenue expenditure by the assessed for purchasing loom hours from for other mills. The High Court had held that this was an expenditure of an enduring nature, but the Supreme Court held it was a revenue expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Messrs. Godrej & Company, Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 4 August, 1959

In Godrej & Co. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 381 (SC), the managing gents were entitled to a remuneration of 20% of net profits, but they reduced the remuneration to 10% and received a lump-sum in lieu of reduction. It was held by the court that the expenditure was a capital expenditure because it reduced the liability to pay 20% and as far as the receipt was concerned, it was a capital receipt, i.e., compensatory. This case is distinguishable on the simple ground that it was a case of reducing a liability on the company and at the same time it has reduced the future income of the managing agents which was of a capital nature is their hands. There is no parallel with the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

J.K. Cotton Manufactures Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lucknow on 4 September, 1975

In J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 221 (SC), a managing agency was voluntarily terminated, but it was held that the compensation paid was not dictated by commercial expendiency and the appellant really wanted to benefit both the firms in which the Singhania family had major interest. The compensation was held not to be of a revenue nature but a capital expenditure. It is again a case of compensation which is treated as of capital nature being compensation for termination of the managing agency. It is difficult to treat the present case on par because of the special facts involved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 24 - S M Ali - Full Document

Kettlewell Bullen And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta on 1 May, 1964

In Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT , there was a voluntary relinquishment of a managing agency and a sum was paid for the same and the question arose whether the arrangement was a trading transaction or whether the appellants had parted with an asset of an enduring value. It was held that the assessed had received compensation for the loss of a capital asset, and it was, therefore, not a revenue receipt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 112 - J C Shah - Full Document
1