Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.11 seconds)Dy. Cit vs Shree Synthetics Ltd. on 7 March, 2002
The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986)162 ITR 819 (MP). In this case the Hon'ble High Court has held that the word 'being' has been used in sub-clause (iv) of section 35(2)(c) by way of illustration and does not restrict it only to the words underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus". Therefore, in the case of issue of shares for public subscription by a company, the expenditure incurred in connection with refund of the amount over-subscribed are expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares and an asscssee will be entitled to deduction of such expenditure as provided in section 35D.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Multi Metals Ltd. on 27 October, 1990
In the case of CIT v. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Raj.) it was held that the fees paid to Registrar of Companies for registration of amendment of Memorandum of Association is the allowable as revenue expenditure. But the expenditure is deductible over a period of ten years under section 351)(2)(c)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahindra Ugine And Steel Co. Ltd. on 19 June, 2000
In the case of CIT v. Mahindra Ugine & Steel Co. Ltd. (2001) 250 ITR 84' (Bom.) the Hon'ble High Court has held that expenditure incurred on payment of stamp duty for debenture issue is allowable under section 35D.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ennar Steel And Alloy (P) Ltd. on 24 September, 2002
9. We find that this issue now stands settled by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ennar Steel & Alloy (P.) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 347 (Mad.). The Hon'ble High Court has held that the preliminary expenses in respect of which benefit can be claimed under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been spelt out in that section. The power reserved to include other items of expenditure has not been exercised by the authority who had been conferred with the power. The Tribunal cannot proceed to exercise that power and include within section 35D, items which have not been included therein by Parliament. The deductions allowable under the Act have necessarily to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it exists.
1