Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Badridas Gauridu (P.) Ltd. on 22 January, 2003
(i) CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd - (2003) 261 ITR 256 (Bom):
Section 10 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai ... vs M/S Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd on 10 August, 2007
- distinguishing the case of K. Mohan & Co, (Export) Pvt. Ltd
(supra) relied on by the authorities below, it was submitted
that since the assessee is not seeking any benefits u/s 10B, the
findings of the Hon'ble earlier Bench is not applicable and
inconsequential to the facts and circumstances of the
assessee's case;
M/S. Ballimal Naval Kishore & Anr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 January, 1997
4.6.1. We have, with due regards, perused the ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore and
Another v. CIT reported in (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC) as relied on by
the revenue. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
analysing the provisions of s. 10(2)(v) of the IT Act, 1922, had
referred to the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of New
Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Limited reported in
(1956) 30 ITR 338(Bom) wherein Mr. Justice Chagla C.J., speaking
for the Division Bench, observed that the expression 'current repairs'
means expenditure on buildings, machinery, plant or furniture which is
not for the purpose of renewal or restoration, but, which is only for the
;purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset and
which does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give to the
assessee a new or different advantage. The learned Chief Justice
observed that they are such repairs as are attended to as and when need
arises and that the question when a building, machinery etc., requires
repairs and when the need arises must be decided not by any academic or
theoretical test but by the test of commercial expediency. The learned
Chief Justice observed:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Soorajmall Nagarmull on 28 January, 1997
has been defined to mean a transaction in which a contract
for the purchase or sale of a commodity is settled otherwise
than by the actual delivery or transfer of such commodity.
However, as stated above, the assessee was not a dealer in
foreign exchange. The assessee was an exporter of cotton.
In order to hedge against losses, the assessee had booked
foreign exchange in the forward market with the bank.
However, the export contracts entered into by the assessee
for export of cotton in some cases failed. In the
circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction
in respect of Rs. 13.50 lakhs as a business loss. This
matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Calcutta
High Court, with which we agree, in the case of CIT vs.
Soorajmull Nagarmull (1981) 22 CTR (Cal) 8 : (1981)
129 ITR 169 (Cal).
Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Panchmahal Steel on 28 March, 2013
(ii The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has, in the case of CIT - III
v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 10
(Guj) on a similar issue, held as under:
Section 43 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu ... vs Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. Etc on 12 August, 1998
(iii) CIT v. Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd 233 ITR 468
4.5. On the other hand, the learned AR supported the
findings of the CIT (A) on the issue.