Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965
8. We have heard both the learned counsel. We have
considered the observations made by CIT (A) and in our
opinion also the payment of stamp duty is not for business
Page 8 of 10
HC-NIC Page 8 of 10 Created On Tue Jun 21 00:04:38 IST 2016
O/TAXAP/414/2007 JUDGMENT
expediency but it is in the nature of a compulsory levy under
the Bombay Stamp Act. It is legally settled that accounting
practice cannot over rider the provisions of the Income Tax
Act, 1961. Stamp duty paid by the appellant during the year
under consideration is a compulsory statutory levy and would
not restrict the profits of the future years and ordinarily
revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the
purpose of business must be allowed in its entirety in the year
in which it is incurred and it cannot be spread over a number
of years. If any statutory expense is required to be paid, in
view of decision of the Apex Court in India Cements Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), such expense is
required to be allowed in the same year.
M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
9. The decision on which learned advocate for the
respondent has placed reliance in the case of Madras
Industrial Investment Corporation v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the
present case, as it was a case of further payment as per
contract between two parties. So far as decision of this Court in
Tax Appeal No.1471 of 2005 is concerned, it was a case of
Page 9 of 10
HC-NIC Page 9 of 10 Created On Tue Jun 21 00:04:38 IST 2016
O/TAXAP/414/2007 JUDGMENT
capital fee collected from the members. Therefore, we do not
agree with the submissions made by the learned advocate for
the respondent.
Cit, Patiala vs Kiran Rani, Dinesh Goel And Ors on 25 January, 2016
6.2 Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Income-
Tax vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel reported in [2011] 331
ITR 10 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court has held as under:
Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Nasik on 23 March, 2015
The Apex Court in
the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of
Income-Tax (supra) also observed that as per the ordinary
rule revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be
allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that
expenditure in that year, the Department cannot deny it.
However, in a case where the assessee himself wants to
spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years, it can
be allowed only if the principle of "matching concept" is
satisfied, which upto now has been restricted to cases of
debentures. Therefore, it is rightly observed by the CIT (A) that
the expense is required to be allowed in the same year.
Section 34 in The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Rakesh S. Mardia vs Dy. Cit on 24 October, 2000
6.1 The Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Shantilal
Mardia vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
reported in [2012] 210 Taxman 565 (SC) considering
the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Taparia Tools Ltd. (supra) has held that matching
principle is required to be followed in order to arrive at
the real income of the assessee.
Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Jt. Cit on 8 January, 2003
6. In this regard we are supported by the decisions of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, Bombay and Delhi
High Courts. The Bombay High Court in the case of
Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT, [2003] 260 ITR 102
has observed that in order to determine the net income
of an accounting year, the revenue and other incomes
are matched with the cost of resources consumed. Under
the Mercantile System of Accounting, this Matching is
required to be done on accrual basis. Under this
Matching concept, revenue and income earned during an
Accounting Period, irrespective of actual cash in-flow, is
required to be compared with expenses incurred during
the same period, irrespective of actual out-flow of cash.
It has been further held that the Income Tax Act makes
no provision with regard to valuation. It charges for
payment of tax, the income which is to be computed in
the manner provided by the Act and that it is the duty of
the Assessing Officer to deduce a proper taxable income.
It is held that the Assessing Officer is required to
compute the income in accordance with the method of
accounting regularly employed by the assessee and if the
system adopted by the assessee does not result in
ascertainment of proper profits then, it is the duty of the
assessing officer to make appropriate adjustments and
deduce true profits.
Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd vs Dy.C.I.T on 21 December, 2004
6.3 This Court has also taken the same view in a recent
decision in the case of Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy.
CIT rendered in Tax Appeal No. 113 of 2004 on
18.11.2014. This Court has observed as under:
1