Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)Section 145A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd on 14 October, 2014
53. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now squarely
covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's
judgment in the case of CIT Vs Ghatghe Patil Transport Ltd [(2014) 368 ITR 749
(Bom)]. In this view of the matter, the impugned disallowance is hereby deleted.
Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980
9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co. (supra) [sic-
General Insurance Corpn.], the Supreme Court considered its earlier
two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1997)
140 CTR (SC) 598 : (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and Punjab State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. (1997) 140 CTR (SC)
594 : (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). Distinguishing these two judgments,
the Supreme Court pointed out that those cases related to the issue
of fresh shares which led to an inflow of fresh funds into the
company, which expands or adds to its capital employed in the
company resulting in the expansion of its profit making apparatus.
The expenditure incurred for the purpose of increasing the
company's share capital by the issue of fresh shares would be treated
as capital expenditure, as held in those cases. Further, when the
expense incurred in connection with bonus shares, there is no
increase in the capital employed, which remains the same.
Brooke Bond India Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West ... on 27 February, 1997
For this reason, and on this distinction, the Court held that such an
expenditure would be treated as revenue expenditure/business
expenditure as it cannot be such (sic-said) that in that case the
company had acquired benefit or addition of enduring nature
because the total funds available with the assessee company would
remain the same.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960
70. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on
record, however, we see no reasons to interfere in the matter. The thrust of
Assessing Officer's disallowance was that there was nothing to show that
expenses were necessarily required to be incurred inasmuch as there was no
direct cause and effect relationship between the expenses incurred and the
business profits of the assessee. Obviously, the Assessing Officer was swayed by
irrelevant consideration. This expenses may or may not be necessary in that
sense but that does not matter. As long as the expenses are incurred wholly and
exclusively for the business, whether necessarily or not, these expenses are
deductible in nature. We find guidance from a passage from the judgment of
House of Lords in the case of Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsbey Cables
Ltd. (1925) 10 Tax Cases 155 (HL), referred to with approval by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR
601 (SC), which reads as follows:
Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd., Bombay vs C.I.T., Bombay on 3 May, 1979
71. It will, therefore, be clear that even if an expense is incurred voluntarily,
it may still be construed as 'wholly and exclusively'. Explaining this principle,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Sassoon J David & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT
[(1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC)] inter alia observed that :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012
26. In the present case, though a finding is given to the effect that no services
are rendered, in the light of the contradictions in this finding and the
observations above, it is clear that in effect commercial expediency of this
payment is questioned. That exercise, in our considered view- particularly in the
light of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of EKL Appliances
(supra), cannot be conducted in the course of ascertaining the arm's length
price.