Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 198 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Tata Sons Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 15 March, 1950
11. The law in connection with the question as to what expenditure could be allowed having regard to the provisions contained in section 10(2) (xv) has been well-settled. As the section itself indicates, such expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Mr. Kaji, the learned advocate for the assessee, relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case, the assessee company was the managing agent of another company. Under the managing agency agreement the assessee company was to be paid a commission at a certain rate which was to be computed upon the net profits of the managed company. During the relevant year the assessee company paid voluntarily a certain sum as its share of the bonus which the managed company paid to some of its officers. The assessee company claimed that the payment made by it was a permissible deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the Act.
Section 354 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Eastern Investments Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 4 May, 1951
12. Another decision on which some reliance was placed by the assessee company was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case the question arose whether deduction could be claimed under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court in that case has observed at page 5 that the test for the purpose of that case was whether the transaction was properly entered into as a part of the assessee's legitimate commercial undertakings in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of its business. If the transaction had been entered into on the ground of commercial expediency in order even indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business of the assessee company, it would attract the provisions of section 12(2) even though the transaction may have been voluntarily entered into.