Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.13 seconds)
M/S Asian Hotels Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 October, 2023 cites

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

38.3. Likewise, the decision in Ashoka Hotels Ltd. is distinguishable as the expenses incurred towards purchasing linen and blankets for use in hotel Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 25 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 rooms and liveries for peons and bearers were those incurred in the first year after it commenced its operations. In other words, the expenditure incurred by the Assessee constituted a part of its initial outlay. 38.4. In the instant case, the appellant/assessee concededly had been functioning for several years before it incurred the expenses towards renovation, refurbishment and repairs. Clearly, the fact situation is quite different from that which obtained in the Ashoka Hotels Ltd. case. 38.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 11 November, 1954

38.1. The first judgment cited on behalf of the respondent/revenue is rendered by the Supreme Court in the Assam Bengal Cement case. Briefly, the facts of this case reveal that the Assessee had acquired the lease of certain limestone quarries. The lease had a tenure of twenty (20) years with a clause for renewal for a further term of twenty (20) years. The lessee was required to pay half-yearly rent at the prescribed rate, with an added obligation to pay royalties on the occurrence of certain events. In addition to these payments, further amounts were payable by the Assessee in terms of clauses 4 and 5 of the lease, which were in the nature of "protection fees". Clause 4 of the lease obligated the Assessee to pay a protection fee in consideration of the lessor being prevented from granting any lease, permit or prospecting license [concerning another group of quarries] to any other party without stipulating that limestone so quarried could not be used for manufacturing cement during the subsistence of the lease tenure. 38.2. Likewise, Clause 5 extended the protection on payment of the stipulated consideration by the Assessee regarding the hill district mentioned therein. It is in this context that the Supreme Court concluded that the Assessee had acquired an advantage of enduring benefit, which extended to the whole of the business of the Assessee for the entire tenure of the lease. It is against this backdrop that the Supreme Court characterised the expenditure incurred by the Assessee towards the protection fee as capital expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 406 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

M/S Hotel ... vs Asst.Commr.Of Commercial Taxes & Anr on 3 February, 2012

(v) The aim and object of expenditure would determine its character, i.e., whether it is in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure. Since the aim and object was to bring a "New Hyatt" into existence, the expenditure could only be characterised as capital expenditure. [See Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. V. CIT, 1955 1 SCR 972; Ashoka Hotel v. CIT, 1969 72 ITR 306 (Delhi) and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the Ballimal Naval Kishore case].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 19 - A R Dave - Full Document

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 17 August, 1971

34. It is well-established that the manner in which the expense/income is reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant/assessee or in some cases omitted, is not determinative of its true nature, although it may provide a clue. The safest and the surest way to arrive at the true nature of the expense/income in issue is by having regard to the provisions enunciated either in the statute and/or the principles enunciated by the courts. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 22 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 following observations of the Supreme Court in the judgement rendered in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Calcutta (1972) 3 SCC 252, being apposite, are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 702 - A N Grover - Full Document

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997

[Emphasis is ours] 34.1. In other words, what is given weight, ultimately, is the provisions of the Act and not what is incorporated in or omitted from the books of accounts, annual statements, whether as a part of accounting practice or otherwise. [See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd. Madras v Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Taparia Tools Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 Nasik (2015) 7 SCC 540; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v Matrix Cellular Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 23 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 International Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017:DHC:7186-DB; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v Denrsply India Pvt. Ltd. 2022:DHC:2652-DB].
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 796 - Full Document

Taparia Tools Ltd. vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Nasik on 23 March, 2015

[Emphasis is ours] 34.1. In other words, what is given weight, ultimately, is the provisions of the Act and not what is incorporated in or omitted from the books of accounts, annual statements, whether as a part of accounting practice or otherwise. [See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd. Madras v Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Taparia Tools Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 Nasik (2015) 7 SCC 540; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v Matrix Cellular Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 23 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 International Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017:DHC:7186-DB; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v Denrsply India Pvt. Ltd. 2022:DHC:2652-DB].
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 44 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 vs Matrix Cellular International ... on 22 November, 2017

[Emphasis is ours] 34.1. In other words, what is given weight, ultimately, is the provisions of the Act and not what is incorporated in or omitted from the books of accounts, annual statements, whether as a part of accounting practice or otherwise. [See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd. Madras v Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Taparia Tools Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 Nasik (2015) 7 SCC 540; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v Matrix Cellular Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 23 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 International Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017:DHC:7186-DB; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v Denrsply India Pvt. Ltd. 2022:DHC:2652-DB].
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 6 vs Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. on 8 April, 2019

[Emphasis is ours] 34.1. In other words, what is given weight, ultimately, is the provisions of the Act and not what is incorporated in or omitted from the books of accounts, annual statements, whether as a part of accounting practice or otherwise. [See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd. Madras v Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117; Taparia Tools Ltd. v Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 Nasik (2015) 7 SCC 540; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v Matrix Cellular Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA ITA 1398/2006 Page 23 of 29 Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:32:37 International Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017:DHC:7186-DB; Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v Denrsply India Pvt. Ltd. 2022:DHC:2652-DB].
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1   2 Next