Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 28 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Mysore Sugar Co., Ltd on 3 May, 1962
11. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Abdullahbhai
Abdulkadar (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that in case of
loss arising out of advance made in a business or profession, the
deciding point is whether advances are made for the purpose of
business or profession or whether they are related to business or
profession or result from it. While dealing with similar issue in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mysore Sugar
Company Limited [46 ITR 649 (SC)], it was held by the Apex
Court as follows:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu ... vs Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. Etc on 12 August, 1998
17. We may point out that the assessee had relied upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [233 ITR 468]. However,
that judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case. The expenditure incurred on the construction of building on
a leased property was treated as revenue expenditure by the
Supreme Court, as the assessee was getting business advantage
and was acquiring the business asset in the context of specific
Clause in the lease deed. Therefore, the property was not treated
as that of the lessor. Further, the Supreme Court found that by
incurring the expenditure of this nature, the assessee had taken
the advantage in the form of reduced rent for a much longer
period. This judgment is, thus, not applicable in the present
context.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar on 6 December, 1960
11. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Abdullahbhai
Abdulkadar (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that in case of
loss arising out of advance made in a business or profession, the
deciding point is whether advances are made for the purpose of
business or profession or whether they are related to business or
profession or result from it. While dealing with similar issue in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mysore Sugar
Company Limited [46 ITR 649 (SC)], it was held by the Apex
Court as follows:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Companies Act, 1956
Durga Dass Aggarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 5 May, 2005
10. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the
respondent-assessee and supported the decision rendered by the
CIT (A) as affirmed by the Tribunal. His submission was that
under Section 28/37(1) of the Act, deduction is admissible for
trading loss/loss incidental to business. The only test to be
satisfied is that the loss must arise from/spring directly from the
carrying on of business. In other words, the loss must be
incidental to the trade itself; there must be some nexus between
the trade and loss which should have been incurred by the
assessee in the course of trade. In order that loss occasioned
from non-realization of advances can be allowed, the loss should
have been incurred by one in the character of trader and the
same should fall on the assessee in that character. He relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Badri
Dass Daga (supra), wherein the Court while allowing the claim for
loss on account of embezzlement by an employee, observed as
under:
Iron Traders P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 May, 1974
She also referred to the
judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Iron Traders
P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 97 ITR 606 wherein
it is held that unless the sum represented the price of stock-in-
trade of the assessee or it represented expenditure incurred for
preserving the assessee‟s business, it could not be said that the
amount was in the nature of revenue expenditure.
1