Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 99 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore vs United Breweries on 6 January, 1972
(a) CIT v. United Breweries [1973] 89 ITR 17 (Mys). The facts of this case were that the assessee, a public limited company, carried on the business of manufacture and sale of beer. During the relevant assessment years the assessee borrowed money on interest. It also advanced moneys to its subsidiary companies without interest. The ITO held that since interest was not charged -by the assessee on advances made by it to its subsidiaries, a part of the interest paid on the amounts borrowed by the assessee was for a non-business purpose and was not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessed carried on its business through the agency or medium of its subsidiaries and there was no distinction between the activities of the assessee-company and those of its subsidiaries. On a reference, the Mysore High Court held that there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that the assessee carried on its business through the agency of its subsidiaries and that the business carried on by the subsidiaries was that of the assessee. The contentions of the revenue were upheld.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Laxmi Agents P. Ltd. on 20 December, 1975
(b) Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents Pvt. Ltd. (see p. 227 infra). In this case, it was found by the Tribunal that the assessee borrowed money and invested in shares of its managed company with a view to protect its managing agency business. The Tribunal concluded that the main object of this investment was for the purpose of the assessee's business and not to earn dividend. The Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and observed as follows (see p 236 infra):
M.S.P. Raja And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 December, 1974
(c) M. S. P. Raja v. CIT . The facts of this case were that the assessees constituted a partnership for the purpose of raising coffee. The capital of this new firm was provided by withdrawal by the assessees from another partnership firm where the assessees were partners and where they had a running current account. The assessee claimed deduction of the interest charged by the firm from where the money had been withdrawn. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the money was borrowed for purchase of an agricultural estate and not for a business purpose. It was held by the Madras High Court on reference that the assessee did not carry on a single business and, therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction of the interest paid under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as the interest had been paid on moneys invested on agricultural land which was not " business " within the meaning of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs J. K. Eastern Industries (Private) ... on 19 June, 1963
15. Mr. Bhattacharyya cited CIT v. J. K. Industries (P.) Ltd. [1969] 71 ITR 594 (Cal) in support of his contentions. In this case relating to the present assessee, one of the directors of the assessee had been sent to Europe to explore the possibilities of technical and financial collaboration with foreign concerns in the matter of manufacture of paints, cranes and conveyance equipments and also to acquire technical knowedge about the manufacture of paints, ropes and some other items. The expenses of this foreign tour were disallowed by the ITO on the ground that the same were not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business. It was held by this court on a reference that by reason of such expenses certain assets of enduring benefit might have accrued to the managed companies but the purpose for which the managing agent incurred these expenses was to increase its own earnings and augmenting the commission derived from the managed companies and, therefore, such expenses were allowable as business expenditure of the assessee under Section 10(2)(xv).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... vs M/S. Kirkend Coal Company on 12 March, 1969
17. The contentions of the assessee appears to us to be not without substance. It has been found by the Tribunal that with the capital borrowed the assessee had acquired a business asset for the purpose of its own business. Further finding is that it was the object of the assessee to house its own office as also the offices of the companies managed by it. These findings have not been challenged nor was it contended at any stage that the housing of the offices of the managed companies was not a part of the business of the assessee. Had this point been mooted at the proper stage the agreements between the assessee and the managed companies could have been considered to ascertain whether the assessee was in any way liable to arrange for office or bound accommodation of the managed companies. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kirkend Coal Co. we hold that this question which was neither raised nor argued before the Tribunal cannot be raised at this stage.
H. Mohmed & Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 13 March, 1973
23. Mr. Sen also cited H. Mohmed & Co. v. CIT , where the aforesaid observations in Hyam's case [1929] 14 TC 479 were quoted with approval.