Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam Etc vs The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd on 19 April, 1965
It was held that the payment was a capital expenditure obviously because it was a payment made for being let into possession such as the cases falling within the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422. Since in the present case the amount was not paid for being let into possession it cannot be treated as a premium and thus a capital expenditure.
M/S. Gotan Lime Syndicate vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi And ... on 15 November, 1965
9. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 that none of the tests laid down in various authorities to distinguish between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure is exhaustive or universal and each case must depend on its own facts.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madras Auto Service Ltd. on 9 March, 1982
10. This takes us to the consideration of the actual nature of the expenditure under the deed dated 18-2-1980. The assessee was already obliged to pay the rent of Rs. 17,500 per year for a period of 48 years which would come to Rs. 8,40,000. But under the deed with which we are concerned, vis., the deed dated 22-3-1980, the assessee was obliged to pay only a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 which will come to about 10 years' rent as against 48 years' rent. Perhaps it represented the lump sum with which the lessor could get an annual return of Rs. 17,500 at the current bank rates. Therefore, it only represented a substitution of a lump sum payment in the place of the original contract to pay annual rent which was undisputedly a revenue expenditure. It has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service Ltd. [1983] 13 Taxman 378 that whatever substitutes or surrogates a revenue expenditure is also revenue expenditure. The surrogate expenditure may be a lump sum payment. It may be laid out at any stage. But if it saves the taxpayer from incurring in the very year or the other years other revenue payments, either in whole or in part, then the expenditure has to qualify as revenue expenditure.
Income-Tax Officer vs First Leasing Co. Of India Ltd. on 8 May, 1985
13. The appeal of the Revenue is directed against the decision of the C.I.T. (Appeals) to grant investment allowance on the new colour film analyser and new colour film printing machine, as claimed by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) followed the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of ITO v. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. [1985] 13 ITD 234 (Mad.) (SB) where it was held that a leasing company can claim investment on machinery leased out even though the company is itself not engaged in manufacturing operations. The CIT (Appeals) also over ruled the objection of the Revenue with regard to the exclusion of cinematograph films in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act by referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prasad Productions (P.) Ltd. [I.T. Appeal Nos. 1831 and 1832 (Mad.) of 1983-84, dated 29-5-1985] where it was held that in item No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act "cinematograph films" refers only to the manufacture of raw films and not for the processing of the film subsequently. The Revenue is unable to persuade us to take a different view in this matter. Hence, the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this point is confirmed.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sree Ramakrishna Mining Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore on 22 June, 1966
[1925] 10 TC 17 (C. SS.) referred to in the decision of Ramakrishna & Co. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 406 (Mad.) relied on by the Revenue. In that case where the assessee did not have an option for renewal the lessor insisted on the payment of a lump sum at the time of renewal in addition to the rent payable for the lease.
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1