Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 July, 1984
8.0 Ground Nos.7 & 8 are related to the addition of Rs.1,83,958/- on
account of belated payment of PF. The assessee has remitted the
contribution of PF to the PF A/c beyond the due date specified under the
respective PF Act & Pension Scheme etc. However, the above amounts
were remitted to the respective accounts before the due date of filing the
return of income. This issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of Industrial Security & Intelligence
India Pvt. Ltd. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of
2015 in favour of assessee.
Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Khimji Visram And Sons (Gujarat) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 October, 1993
8. Also with regard to the claim preferred by the appellant u/s.37 and not u/s.32, the same
is not tenable on facts and in law. It is settled law that the provisions of s.37 are applicable
in respect of general expenses, where expenditure not specified in s.30 to s.36 are to be
considered. As also, expenditure which is not capital or personal in nature and which is
wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of business. These exclude
expenses for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law etc. Sec.37(1) therefore
being a residual provision, cannot be taken aid of, unless and until it is established that
none of the provisions of s.30 to 36 are applicable to a given case. This view finds support
from the ratio in Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Company Ltd v. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) and
Khimji Visram and Sons P Ltd v CIT 209 ITR 993 (Guj.).
S/S. Bhagat Motor Co. P. Ltd. vs S.K. Abrol Dcit on 30 September, 2011
In this context, it will serve useful purpose to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala
High Court dated 18.8.2015 in lndus Motor Company P Ltd v. DCIT 378 ITR 707. While
examining a similar claim the Hon'ble Court observed ".... after the introduction of
Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any
interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building
for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decorating or by doing
interior work in the building and enduring benefit was derived by the assessee for the
period of occupation and, therefore, is capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure "
Continental Construction Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 April, 1992
According to us, by adding Explanation 1 to section 32(1) Parliament has manifested its
legislative intention to treat the expenditure incurred by the assessee on leasehold building
as capital expenditure and, therefore, Explanation I to section 32(1) cannot be subjected to
any further interpretation. Further the language of Explanation 1 is very plain and clear and
there is no scope for providing a different meaning for the words used and, hence, we are
bound to consider the question by giving the literal meaning to the expressions and
phraseologies by the legislature applied." Further applying the ratio, amongst others,
obtaining in the case of Madras Auto Service P Ltd 233 ITR 468 the Hon'ble High Court, the
jurisdictional ITAT in its order dated 11.9.2015 in ITA No.700/Mds/2014 for the A.Y.2008-
09 in the case of the Continental Enterprises v. ITO has dismissed the claim of 100%
depreciation by the assessee.
1