Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Minoo F. Mehta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 December, 1994
In fact, the line between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure still remain hasy and despite of various tests laid down by various courts including the apex court it is not easy to put a particular case in one category or the other.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
7. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemicals works Co Ltd vs CIT wherein at held column (iv) it was observed that the improvising in the process and technology in some areas of the enterprise would amount to supplemental to a existing business.
Sayaji Iron And Engg. Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 July, 2001
19. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT has held as under:-
Indian Ginning And Pressing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 August, 2001
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alembic Chemicals works Co Ltd (supra) observed as held in column (iv) as under:-
Section 198 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980
"There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material co consider is the nature of advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. The test of enduring benefit is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case."
Scientific Engineering House (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... on 1 November, 1985
In this regard he referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Scientific Engineering House Profit Limited vs CIT (157 ITR 86) wherein even documentation comprising of drawings, designs, plans, processing data etc were held to be plant and depreciation was held to be allowable.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. on 19 March, 1996
2) CIT vs Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd 223 ITR 440 (Ker)(1997)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ananda Bazar Patrika P. Ltd. on 3 April, 1978
3) CIT vs Anand Bazar Patrika P Ltd 184 ITR 542