Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)Mohanlal Hiralal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C.P. And ... on 24 April, 1952
4. Taking up the question raised by the Department, the answer must be in favour of the assessee. Under section 16 (1) of the Act, the exempted sums are to be included only for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee. The question of set-off under section 24 (1) arises only if there is taxable income, and not otherwise. That section entitles the assessee and not the Department to claim a set-off of loss against profits to determine the marginal taxable income. It does not, therefore, entitle the Income-tax Officer to minimise the loss by setting off the profits. The cases relied upon by the Department, namely Commissioner of Income-tax v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Association, Mohanlal Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Syndicate,Mishrimal Gulabchand of Beawar, In re and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hira Mall Narain Dass only deal with the right of the assessee to set off loss against gains or profits and are not, therefore, applicable to the case before us. We hold that the loss to be apportioned amounts to Rs. 1,15,309.
Commr. Of Income-Tax, Punjab, Pepsu, ... vs Hira Mall Narain Dass on 22 June, 1953
4. Taking up the question raised by the Department, the answer must be in favour of the assessee. Under section 16 (1) of the Act, the exempted sums are to be included only for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee. The question of set-off under section 24 (1) arises only if there is taxable income, and not otherwise. That section entitles the assessee and not the Department to claim a set-off of loss against profits to determine the marginal taxable income. It does not, therefore, entitle the Income-tax Officer to minimise the loss by setting off the profits. The cases relied upon by the Department, namely Commissioner of Income-tax v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Association, Mohanlal Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Syndicate,Mishrimal Gulabchand of Beawar, In re and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hira Mall Narain Dass only deal with the right of the assessee to set off loss against gains or profits and are not, therefore, applicable to the case before us. We hold that the loss to be apportioned amounts to Rs. 1,15,309.
New Shorrock Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 March, 1950
5. The answer to the question raised by the assessee depends upon whether the expenditure can be held to be in respect of "current repairs" within the meaning of clause (v) of section 10 (2) of the Act. The term "repairs" has to be understood in contradistinction to reconstruction. When the existing asset is only maintained or preserved, the case is one of repairs and not reconstruction : see Commissioners of Income-tax v. Darhbanga Sugar Co. Ltd. and New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The work that was done in the instant case was only intended to preserve and maintain the existing machine and the building. The cylinder of the machine and the flooring of the building had worn out by use and needed replacement in the ordinary course. The question of the amount of expenditure does not count in such cases, for that does not change the nature of the expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs S. B. Ranjit Singh. on 9 December, 1954
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. B. Ranjit Singh it was held that a sum can be allowed as the cost of repairs even though the expenditure in a particular year is heavy on account of the fact that it is undertaken to remedy the effect of several years of wear and tear or neglect and also in spite of the fact that such expenditure may not be necessary for several years to come after the repairs have been effected. As no new asset has been created by the replacement of these parts, the expenditure must be held to be in respect of current repairs. We hold that the expenditure is revenue and not capital expenditure.
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Murlidhar Mathurawalla Mahajan ... on 18 March, 1948
4. Taking up the question raised by the Department, the answer must be in favour of the assessee. Under section 16 (1) of the Act, the exempted sums are to be included only for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee. The question of set-off under section 24 (1) arises only if there is taxable income, and not otherwise. That section entitles the assessee and not the Department to claim a set-off of loss against profits to determine the marginal taxable income. It does not, therefore, entitle the Income-tax Officer to minimise the loss by setting off the profits. The cases relied upon by the Department, namely Commissioner of Income-tax v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Association, Mohanlal Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. C. P. Syndicate,Mishrimal Gulabchand of Beawar, In re and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hira Mall Narain Dass only deal with the right of the assessee to set off loss against gains or profits and are not, therefore, applicable to the case before us. We hold that the loss to be apportioned amounts to Rs. 1,15,309.
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B And O vs Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. on 29 September, 1955
5. The answer to the question raised by the assessee depends upon whether the expenditure can be held to be in respect of "current repairs" within the meaning of clause (v) of section 10 (2) of the Act. The term "repairs" has to be understood in contradistinction to reconstruction. When the existing asset is only maintained or preserved, the case is one of repairs and not reconstruction : see Commissioners of Income-tax v. Darhbanga Sugar Co. Ltd. and New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The work that was done in the instant case was only intended to preserve and maintain the existing machine and the building. The cylinder of the machine and the flooring of the building had worn out by use and needed replacement in the ordinary course. The question of the amount of expenditure does not count in such cases, for that does not change the nature of the expenditure.
1