Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Coramandel Industries Pvt Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 27 November, 2009 cites

K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam on 30 November, 2000

9. Since its inception in 1964, the assessee has been carrying on the business in the same line of automobile industry. The assessee had carried on two branches; one branch to provide technical knowhow and the other branch to manufacture automobile components. It is to be seen that both the above activities are of the same nature and relating to the same industry. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it is to be seen that both the activities were carried on by the assessee as a single :- 6 -: ITA 181/10 business and for all practical purposes its only customer is Wheels India Ltd. Consultancy is something different from manufacturing. Therefore, by virtue of the nature of the functions, those two activities are to be treated as two units. But at the same time, those two units are carried on by the assessee as a single business. In such circumstances, when the manufacturing unit is closed down and expenses incurred have resulted in loss, it should be set off against the income arising to the assessee from its running business of providing consultancy services. Therefore, we find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the assessee in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (247 ITR 178) is applicable to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

P. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 September, 1968

445) to support his argument that the compensation paid by the assessee to its workers on closure of the business cannot be treated as revenue expenditure and therefore, cannot be set off against the income earned from other business units. The learned Commissioner has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. RM. S. Ramanathan Chettiar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (72 ITR 534) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation (65 ITR 643) where the Supreme Court has held that the expenses incurred on closure of business should be treated :- 5 -: ITA 181/10 as capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction in computing the income of the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation, ... on 20 April, 1967

445) to support his argument that the compensation paid by the assessee to its workers on closure of the business cannot be treated as revenue expenditure and therefore, cannot be set off against the income earned from other business units. The learned Commissioner has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. RM. S. Ramanathan Chettiar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (72 ITR 534) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation (65 ITR 643) where the Supreme Court has held that the expenses incurred on closure of business should be treated :- 5 -: ITA 181/10 as capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction in computing the income of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 105 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Diesel Engineer on 16 April, 1998

4. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Diesel Engineer (244 ITR 488) to show that when a number of activities are carried out by an assessee as a single business, the loss arising out of one of the units must be allowed to set off against the profits of other units even if the loss making unit has been closed down.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - R J Babu - Full Document
1