Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.72 seconds)J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P on 2 August, 1968
He pleaded that
27 ITA No.3036/Del/2010
CO No.357/Del/2010
the same is upheld in J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, cited supra. In
applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an
expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the
business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the
point of view of the businessman and not of the income-tax department.
He also submitted that mere agreement is not enough and could not be a
substitute for the evidence whether real services have been rendered to
earn commission. He also submitted that when expenditure is legal then
only it can be allowed. He also submitted that burden of proof is on the
taxpayer that a particular allowance is justifiable and in absence of any
such evidence the finding of the Assessing Officer must be accepted. The
burden of proof is on the assessee to claim a deduction and to bring all
material facts on record to substantiate its claim.
Section 37 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Saurashtra Cement And Chemical ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 October, 1994
The allowance must
be granted in the year in which the liability is incurred or accrued was
also a stand taken by the ld. DR. Ld. AR submitted that the judgement of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical
Industries Ltd. V. CIT, cited supra, rather supports the assessee's
contention that merely because the expenses relate to a transaction of
12 ITA No.3036/Del/2010
CO No.357/Del/2010
earlier year, it does not become the liability payable in the earlier year
unless it can be said that the liability is determined and crystallized in the
year in question. The ld. AR further submitted that assessee has put a
Note No.3 which accompanied the computation of income. The relevant
Note read as under:-
Section 69 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
Thus, the Assessing
Officer's act was completely against the basis principles of accountancy.
As per the Assessing Officer, the prior period expenses cannot be allowed
in the said Assessment Year since the same is related to transactions
entered into the earlier year. Following the matching concept in order to
determine the net income of an accounting year, the revenue and other
income are matched with the cost to find the correct income. The ld. AR
further pleaded that the ld. DR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation
Ltd v. CIT, cited supra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
there could be no computation of profits and gains until the expenditure
which is necessary for the purpose of earning the receipt is deducted
therefrom whether the expenditure is actually incurred or the liability in
respect of thereof has accrued. Other decisions were also cited by ld. DR
for the proposition that only ascertained liabilities justify an entry in the
books of account maintained on mercantile system.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Mrs Iren D'Souza on 16 February, 2010
(a) Dy. CIT v. Mrs. Irene D'Souza (2006) 6 SOT 86 (Bang),
Ipca Laboratory Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 March, 2004
(c) Silicon Graphics System (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2007) 17 SOT 29
(Del) (URO)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dalmia Cement P. Ltd. (No. 4) on 12 August, 1987
15. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that assessment has paid
Rs.2.5 lacs as remuneration to the whole time Managing Director of the
company. The Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowance of Rs.1 lac
therefrom. The total turnover of the company was more than Rs.617
crores in comparison to Rs.466 crores in the earlier year. The profit
before tax was increased from Rs.44.16 crores to Rs.64.52 crores. The
remuneration paid to the Managing Director was in accordance with the
Schedule-XIII of the Companies Act, 1956. This payment of
remuneration has been approved by the Board of Directors and
shareholders of the company, therefore, ad hoc disallowance was not
justified which the CIT (A) has rightly deleted. The ld. AR also relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia
Cement (P.) Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 377.