Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.35 seconds)Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. on 9 July, 1981
In the case of Chhabirani Agro Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 191 ITR 226 (Pat), the honble Patna High Court have followed the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (supra). In that case, honble Patna High Court held that all expenditure necessary to bring capital assets into existence and put them in working condition will form part of its cost. It is wholly irrelevant whether the asset was acquired prior to the commencement of business or subsequent to such commencement.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Trade Links Ltd. on 16 December, 1994
In the order of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Trade Links Ltd. (supra), the Delhi Bench held the view that the decision of CIT vs. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom), has been differed from by the honble Calcutta High Court. After detailed consideration expenditure incurred on rent and depreciation on the guest house was held to be disallowable under ss. 37(4) and (5).
The Finance Act, 1996
Kesoram Industries And Cotton Mills ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 June, 1989
3. The second ground of appeal is directed against the authorities below not allowing deduction of share issue expenses amounting to Rs. 2,74,935 on the ground that the same is inadmissible being of capital nature. The learned CIT(A) has held this view deriving support from the judgments of the honble Calcutta High Court reported in Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 272 (Cal), Union Carbide (I) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 678 (Cal) and Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 845 (Cal). During the course of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the facts of his case were distinguishable inasmuch as the expenditure was incurred on issue of redeemable preference shares. These preference shares were issued with a view to generate funds for expansion of production capacity. At the assessees business as well as manufacturing had already commenced, expenditure incurred on share issue could not be held to be of capital nature.
Brooke Bond India Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West ... on 27 February, 1997
4. We have carefully considered these contentions of the assessee. The matter has now also been decided by the honble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bonds (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC). The honble apex Court have held that expenditure incurred by a company in connection with the issue of shares, with a view to increase its share capital, is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company and is capital expenditure, even though it may incidentally help in the business of the company and in profit-making. In our view, it would not make any difference that issue pertains to preference shares and not equity shares. The fact remains that even the issue of redeemable preference shares goes to expand the capital base of the company. We, therefore, reject this ground also.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar. (Decd. By Legal ... on 26 October, 1990
This position has been clearly recognised by the honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar & Ors. (supra) that the quantum of allowance permitted to be deducted from the profits and gains of business would differ according to the system of accounting.