Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.41 seconds)
Icici Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Rg 4(1), Mumbai on 19 March, 2018 cites

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit Cc -40, Mumbai on 14 March, 2018

7.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in Fiduciary Shares and Stock (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 159 ITD 554 (Mum). It is submitted by him that the share trading activity of the assessee is incidental to its main business activity of stock-broking and carried out along with stock-broking activity. Common funds and managerial staff of the assessee carry out these activities. There is unity of control and management between the business of the assessee-company. It is stated that as evident from the business practice followed by the assessee, it has no intention to resort to manipulative devices to distort income and therefore, Explanation to section 73 cannot be invoked.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs South Indian Bank Ltd. Trichur on 23 November, 1965

"Section 14A was enacted by the Parliament in order to overcome the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1473, CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450/109 Taxman 145, in which it was held that in the case of a composite and indivisible business, which results in earning of taxable and non-taxable income, it is impermissible to apportion the expenditure between what was laid out for the earning of taxable income as opposed to non-taxable income. The effect of section 14A is to widen the theory of the apportionment of expenditure. Prior to the enactment of section 14A, where the business of an assessee was not a composite and indivisible business and the assessee earned both taxable and non-taxable income, the expenditure incurred on earning non-taxable income could not be allowed as a deduction as against the taxable income. As a result ICICI Securities 9 ITA No. 4269/Mum/2013 & 739/Mum/2016 of the enactment of section 14A, no expenditure can be allowed as a deduction in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Hence, even in the case of a composite and indivisible business, which results in the earning of taxable and non-taxable income, it would be necessary to apportion the expenditure incurred by the assessee. Only that part of the expenditure, which is incurred in relation to income which forms part of the total income, can be allowed. The expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has to be disallowed. From this, it would follow that section 14A has within it implicit notion of apportionment. The principle of apportionment which prior to the amendment of section 14A would not have applied to expenditure incurred in a composite and indivisible business which results in taxable and non- taxable income, must, after the enactment of the provisions, apply even to such a situation. The expression 'expenditure incurred' in section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 188 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. Bombay on 16 August, 1971

"Section 14A was enacted by the Parliament in order to overcome the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 1473, CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450/109 Taxman 145, in which it was held that in the case of a composite and indivisible business, which results in earning of taxable and non-taxable income, it is impermissible to apportion the expenditure between what was laid out for the earning of taxable income as opposed to non-taxable income. The effect of section 14A is to widen the theory of the apportionment of expenditure. Prior to the enactment of section 14A, where the business of an assessee was not a composite and indivisible business and the assessee earned both taxable and non-taxable income, the expenditure incurred on earning non-taxable income could not be allowed as a deduction as against the taxable income. As a result ICICI Securities 9 ITA No. 4269/Mum/2013 & 739/Mum/2016 of the enactment of section 14A, no expenditure can be allowed as a deduction in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Hence, even in the case of a composite and indivisible business, which results in the earning of taxable and non-taxable income, it would be necessary to apportion the expenditure incurred by the assessee. Only that part of the expenditure, which is incurred in relation to income which forms part of the total income, can be allowed. The expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has to be disallowed. From this, it would follow that section 14A has within it implicit notion of apportionment. The principle of apportionment which prior to the amendment of section 14A would not have applied to expenditure incurred in a composite and indivisible business which results in taxable and non- taxable income, must, after the enactment of the provisions, apply even to such a situation. The expression 'expenditure incurred' in section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 171 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next