Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.71 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana on 30 May, 2002
Further, relying of the principles established by the Hon'ble
P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 289 ITR 270
wherein the tour expenses were held as revenue expenditure even if no
machinery was purchased assessee submitted that it has incurred expenses
to decide the validity of the open offer, therefore, the basis of the said
decision would result in revenue expenditure. Not only on the above
principles, the assessee also submitted that the assessee earned only
dividend income of `22,28,572/- and an amount of `1,09,470/- was also
disallowed by the assessee and further shares acquired through open offer
have not yielded any income in the form of dividend to the assessee,
therefore, disallowance under section 14A does not arise.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 vs M/S. Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd on 22 January, 2009
Therefore, since the investment in group
companies is not the business of assessee many of the decisions relied upon
by the assessee, particularly the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in the case of Srishti Securities P. Ltd. (supra) does not apply. In the above
said case there was a finding that the assessee company borrowed funds,
which were utilised in its business of acquiring shares by way of investment
as well as by way of stock in trade. In that context the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in the case of Srishti Securities P. Ltd. 183 Taxman 159 held that
whether the funds are borrowed by the investment company for making
investment in shares or as stock in trade or for the purpose of controlling
interest in other companies the interest paid on such borrowed funds would
be deductible under section 36(1)(iii). It is also noticed that the said
judgement was delivered in the context relevant to interest on borrowed
capital under section 36(1)(iii) and not in relation to section 14A, the
provisions of which are all together different.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Elphinstone Spinning And Weaving Mills ... on 19 July, 1974
Further relying on the
principles established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. 100 ITR 139 and the
decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Investment
Trust of India ltd. 127 Taxman 168 and CIT vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. 89 ITR 304 (All) it was the submission of the learned counsel
that the expenditure is wholly and necessarily for the purpose of business,
therefore, the same was allowable under section 37(1). The learned counsel
in the alternate referred to the submission made before the CIT(A) that in
the case this expenditure was considered to be that of investment in shares
the alternate submission made before the CIT(A) that it should be allowed to
be capitalised, contested in ground No. 5 should be considered.
Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Investment Trust Of India Ltd. ... on 6 April, 2006
Further relying on the
principles established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. 100 ITR 139 and the
decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Investment
Trust of India ltd. 127 Taxman 168 and CIT vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. 89 ITR 304 (All) it was the submission of the learned counsel
that the expenditure is wholly and necessarily for the purpose of business,
therefore, the same was allowable under section 37(1). The learned counsel
in the alternate referred to the submission made before the CIT(A) that in
the case this expenditure was considered to be that of investment in shares
the alternate submission made before the CIT(A) that it should be allowed to
be capitalised, contested in ground No. 5 should be considered.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi ... vs Modi Spinning And Weaving Mills Co. Ltd on 26 October, 1990
Further relying on the
principles established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. 100 ITR 139 and the
decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Investment
Trust of India ltd. 127 Taxman 168 and CIT vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. 89 ITR 304 (All) it was the submission of the learned counsel
that the expenditure is wholly and necessarily for the purpose of business,
therefore, the same was allowable under section 37(1). The learned counsel
in the alternate referred to the submission made before the CIT(A) that in
the case this expenditure was considered to be that of investment in shares
the alternate submission made before the CIT(A) that it should be allowed to
be capitalised, contested in ground No. 5 should be considered.
Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 September, 1993
the investment has triggered. It was the contention that any expenditure
which was incurred before the decision of the management to make the
investment would be for open offer and would not result in investment so
this is revenue in nature. It was further submitted, relying on the principles
established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bralco Metal
Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 206 ITR 477 (Bom), the assessee's business is
just make investment and the expenditure incurred for arriving at a decision
to invest is business decision and the expenditure is not capital in nature
but revenue.
Haryana Land Reclamation And ... vs Cit on 1 August, 2006
The learned D.R. also relied
on the decision of the P&H High Court in the case of Haryana Land
Reclamation and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 302 ITR 28 to
submit that the provisions of section 14A will come into force where no
expenditure can be allowed in case corresponding income is exempt.
Therefore, since the dividend income is exempt it was submitted that the
expenditure cannot be allowed as claimed by the assessee. The learned D.R.
8 ITA No. 2233/Mum/2009
TGS Investment & Trade Pvt. Ltd.
Hemalatha Gargya vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 November, 2002
also relied on the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hemalata Gargya vs. CIT 259 ITR 1 to submit that Revenue can
question the issue even if it is accepted in another decision and relied on the
principles of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering
Works P. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 to submit that it is not proper to record a word,
clause or sentence given in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
diverse from its context, as containing full expression of law on a question
which do not even fall in the scope of judgement.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
also relied on the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hemalata Gargya vs. CIT 259 ITR 1 to submit that Revenue can
question the issue even if it is accepted in another decision and relied on the
principles of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering
Works P. Ltd. 198 ITR 297 to submit that it is not proper to record a word,
clause or sentence given in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
diverse from its context, as containing full expression of law on a question
which do not even fall in the scope of judgement.