Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Business Information Processing ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1999 cites

Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992

Likewise, some more observations were made by the Assessing Officer and then he disallowed the claim of the assessee. While disallowing the claim, the Assessing Officer placed reliance on 125 ITR 29 (sic) (Bom.), Scientific Engg. House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86/[1985] 23 Taxman 66 (SC) and a decision of Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 348/JP/88 where it was held that the expenses on technical know-how are capital expenses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 2319 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Western India State Motors on 13 October, 1992

14. We have considered other case laws also which was relied upon by the ld. A/R. In case of CIT v. Western India State Motors [1993] 203 ITR 363 (Raj), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that "according to normal accepted principles, a capital expenditure is something which is spent once for all, while the revenue expenditure is that which is to be incurred every year. Replacement of machinery in the usual course of business which is worn out would be to maintain the machinery".
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Praga Tools Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 November, 1979

In case of Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 773/[1981] 5 Taxman 284 (A.P.) (FB), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that "Where the expenditure has a direct nexus, connection or relation to the carrying on of or conducting the business of the assessee, it must be regarded as an integral part of the profit-making process. In such a case, it must be held to be a revenue expenditure".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

R.G.S. Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 September, 1989

In case of R.G.S. Industries v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 31/51 Taxman 467, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held that "Where the assessee had acquired certain trading benefits which could over-run the year but all the same it was found to be not permanent. Since the advantage was not enduring for indefinite period, it was found that the claim could be allowed as a deduction."
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

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

In case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1/3 Taxman 69 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may nevertheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit, may break down. What is material to consider is the nature of the 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 the above 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1