Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Krishan Kumar on 2 December, 2014 cites

M/S. Gotan Lime Syndicate vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi And ... on 15 November, 1965

In Gotan Lime Syndicate's case (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with a case where the assessee firm which carried on the business of manufacturing lime from limestone, was granted under a lease the right to excavate lime-stones in certain areas. On expiry of lease, the same was extended for short periods. On a change of policy, 15 square miles of lime deposits were sanctioned to the assessee on October 4, 1954. Between the period July, 1952 to the date the new lease was to be given effect, a fixed royalty of Rs. 96,000/- per annum had to be paid on the basis of dead rent. The assessee could not carry away any other mineral which might be found in the area and he was ITA No.50/2000 & connected appeals Page 19 of 33 further allowed to go on the land and win them. Payments were finalized by Mining Engineer who fixed the royalty at Rs. 96,000/- per year as the royalty fixed by the rules was far less than that figure. For each assessment years between 1954 to 1957, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 96,000/- to the government and claimed it to be revenue deduction. In the absence of material to show that any part of royalty had to be treated as premium and referable to the acquisition of mining lease, the royalty payment included the dead rent had relation only to the lime deposits to be got and were therefore treated as revenue expenditure. Although, the assessee did derive an advantage; assuming that advantage was to last at least for a period of five years, there was no payment once for all. The royalty was not a direct payment for securing an enduring advantage; it had relation to the raw material to be obtained. The reason why royalty was allowed as revenue expenditure was the relation it had to the amount of raw material to be excavated or extracted. You take more, the more royalty you pay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 95 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Modern Theatres Ltd. on 3 December, 1962

29. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, we note that during the submissions, a reference was made to a reference case No. ITR 301/1994 decided by ITA No.50/2000 & connected appeals Page 13 of 33 this Court wherein, one of the assessee was M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. and the said reference was made by the Tribunal to this Court on identical issue. We had accordingly called for the record of ITR 301/1994. We have perused different orders passed by this Court. We note that the said reference was not answered keeping in view that the tax effect in that case was less than Rs.10 lakhs.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Travancore Sugars And Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Kerala on 20 September, 1966

In Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1966] 62 ITR 566 (SC), the assessee company acquired certain government concerns and was made liable to pay to the government a part of profit share every year. It was held that since the annual payment was for an indefinite period of time unrelated to the capital value of the assets or a fixed purchase consideration, the expenses were revenue in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 91 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

M. A. Jabbar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 23 November, 1967

In M.A.Jabbar Vs. CIT, [1968] 68 ITR 493 (SC), wherein the assessee had taken a short term lease of eleven months for quarrying purposes to carry away, sell and dispose of sand which was lying on the surface of river bed without excavation or skilful extraction. The said expenditure was held to be revenue in character, even though, the interest of land was also conveyed. The decisive factor was the object for which the lease was taken and the nature of payment, when and while obtaining the lease.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 35 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Oracle India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 November, 2013

This Court in Oracle India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2014] 264 CTR 144 (Delhi) while dealing with a case wherein the assessee was incorporated on 18.01.1993 and was a subsidiary of Oracle Corporation, USA. The subsidiary company entered into an agreement with parent company under which it was granted non-exclusive, non- assignable right and authority to duplicate on appropriate carrier media software products and other products retaining the ownership of the copyrights in the software and all associated and Intellectual property rights in the products. The agreements stipulated that the appellant shall duplicate and reproduce the software in India and sub-licence the same as per the terms of the sub-licence deed stipulated and with the holding company retaining the entire data/intellectual property rights in the software. The assessee was to pay royalty to the holding company @ 30% of the list price of the licenced products as prescribed in the Indian ITA No.50/2000 & connected appeals Page 23 of 33 published price fixed in consultation with the licensor. Apart from the royalty, some other amounts were to be paid by the assessee. The question arose, whether the business expenditure was capital or revenue in character. This Court, after referring to the various judgments including some referred above, has held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd vs Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 November, 2012

34. We note that with regard to one of the assessees in this batch of appeals namely Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. for the Assessment Year 1987-88, an identical issue was decided by the Delhi Bench of ITAT, a reference of which has already been given above, and which is reported as Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1992] 41 ITD 513, in the following manner:-
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Tips Cassettes & Record Co. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 July, 2000

In Empire Jute Co. case (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the facts wherein the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of jute, and was a member of the Jute Mills Association, which was formed on the object of inter alia protecting trade of its members by regulating production in the mills. In pursuance thereto, the members had entered into a working time agreement whereby the number of working hours per week for which the mills were entitled to work their looms to their full capacity was capped, as there was overcapacity but lower demand. This restriction had the effect of limiting the production and consequently the profits, which the assessee could earn. Under the same agreement, one mill could transfer loom hours to another for consideration, subject to conditions. Thus, purchase of loom hours had the effect of relaxing the restriction on operation of loom hours and enabled the purchaser to work its looms for longer durations and earn profits. The Supreme Court observed that capital expenditure was one made with a view to bring into existence an asset for enduring benefit to the trade. But, this rule of enduring benefit was subject to and could break down for good reasons. The nature of ITA No.50/2000 & connected appeals Page 15 of 33 advantage has to be considered in commercial sense and only when the advantage was in capital field, the expenditure could be disallowed by applying the enduring benefit test. If the advantage consisted of merely facilitating trading operations or enabling the management for conduct of business more efficiently and profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the said expenditure would be on revenue account, though the advantage may endure for an indefinite period. The enduring benefit test was therefore not conclusive and cannot be mechanically applied without considering the commercial aspect.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next