Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 30 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs D.V. Bapat, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 26 February, 1975
2. So far as the first question above referred to is concerned, the facts need not be stated, as, so far as this court is concerned, it has been concluded by the decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D. V. Bapat, ITO [1975] 101 ITR 292 (Bom). In view of the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative.
Gian Chand Vir Bhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla. on 23 December, 1959
11. The onus is upon the assessee to prove each one of the ingredients. Assuming for the purpose of this reference, that so far as the first and the third ingredients are concerned, the same are fulfilled having regard to the materials on record, a question arose whether the second ingredient above mentioned has been fulfilled. It is the settled principle of law that if any deduction is claimed, it is for the assessee to prove that the deduction is legally allowable to him. If he fails to do so, the amount so claimed is liable to be assessed. (See Gopinath Vir Bhan v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 243, 251 (Lah)). The onus will, therefore, be upon the assessee to prove that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to the Industrial Aid International was not an expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Molasses Co. Pr. Ltd. on 16 March, 1966
16. That takes us to the alternative contention of Dr. Pal that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal with a view to enable the assessee to produce the relevant material so that a proper finding may be given by the Tribunal on the question whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 which was admittedly paid to the Industrial Aid International was an item of expenditure of capital or revenue nature. Reliance was placed by him upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 78 ITR 474. In that case, the question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a particular item of expenditure was such that the requirements of s. 10(2) (xv) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, were satisfied. Dr. Pal has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court at page 482. On the facts before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court took the view that two courses were open to them, either to call for a supplementary statement of the case from the Tribunal or to decline to answer the question raised by the Tribunal and to leave the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to adjust its decision under s. 66(5) in the light of the answer of the court. It was also felt by the Supreme Court that if it directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case, the Tribunal, according to the several decisions referred to therein, would be restricted to the evidence on the record and may not be entitled to take additional evidence. That, according to the Supreme Court, might result in injustice. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court felt it appropriate to decline to answer the question on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to consider and decide the question whether the expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company and had not considered all appropriate provisions of the statute applicable thereto. Certain aspects of the matter in that case were not considered by the Tribunal and the court's reason was that it was reluctant to do so. That was the view taken by the Supreme Court having regard to the particular facts of the case.
1