Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
26. We have been referred to number of authorities by Shri Dastur. In the case of CIT. v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC), compensation paid for termination of managing agency was held to be an allowable deduction in computing the profits by the Supreme Court. So, too, in-the case of J.K. Cotton Mfrs. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 221 (SC).
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 November, 1977
Similar is the principle applied by the Bombay High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900.
Eastern Investments Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 4 May, 1951
28. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 and again by the Bombay High Court in the case of F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 114 that payment made on the ground of commercial expediency, if it was to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee, should be treated on the revenue account.
Abdulla Ahmed vs Animendra Kissen Mitter on 14 March, 1950
The approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) was plainly incorrect. In any agreement, the intention of the parties is paramount and that has to be ascertained not only by placing a fair interpretation on the clauses but also taking into consideration surrounding facts and circumstances particularly the immediate conduct of the parties after the agreement which may more eloquently speak on the disputed question. This is precisely the principle explained by the Supreme Court in Abdulla Ahmed's case (supra) and D.N. Revri & Co.'s case (supra).
Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980
29. The principle upon which an item would belong to capital or revenue has been neatly stated in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and quoted with approval in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 377(SC). Enduring benefit is not the acid test. It is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. "What is material to consider is the nature of advantage in a commercial sense.
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat on 31 March, 1989
29. The principle upon which an item would belong to capital or revenue has been neatly stated in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and quoted with approval in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 377(SC). Enduring benefit is not the acid test. It is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. "What is material to consider is the nature of advantage in a commercial sense.
F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 October, 1959
28. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 and again by the Bombay High Court in the case of F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 114 that payment made on the ground of commercial expediency, if it was to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee, should be treated on the revenue account.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-I vs Glaxo Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. on 2 November, 1977
An amount paid for termination of agency, intended to ensure smooth transition without interference by agents, was considered to be in the business interest of the assessee by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) (P.) Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 110.
1