Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)Section 17 in The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
Section 40A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Poulose And Mathen (Pvt.) Ltd. on 3 February, 1998
(ii) CIT v. Poulose & Mathen (P.) Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 416 (Ker.).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.R.S. Oberoi on 18 September, 1989
Besides, the judgment of the Delhi High Court has not referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of P.R.S. Oberoi (supra) relied on by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, in deciding the earlier appeal. Moreover, the decision of the Calcutta High Court clearly brings out the reasoning as to why interest free loan given to the Director did not constitute benefit under section 2(24)(iv). The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has observed that the very fact that statute had to be amended at the first instance by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 to incorporate sub-clause (vi) in section 17(2) and sub-clause (vi) of clause (b) of Explanation to section 40A(5). To bring the said items within the purview of expression 'perquisite' and it later sought to delete the same items from the dates of its insertion clearly shows that Parliament did not intend to treat interest free loan or loan at concessional rate as any benefit or perquisite granted or provided by the lender company to the Director or employee, as the case may be. Besides, there is a clear finding recorded by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that there is nothing on record to show that company had borrowed money on interest for making advances to the assessee and/or paid any interest on the overdrawn amount which, but for such payment, would have been paid by the Director or his relations.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Nar Hari Dalmia, New Delhi on 11 March, 1970
(i) The first judgment relied on by the ld. D.R. is Nar Hari Dalmia's case (supra). In this case, the company had incurred expenditure on foreign tour of the Director. The Director had not done any business for the company. In the light of these facts, the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court has held that expenditure incurred on foreign tour was a benefit derived by the Director because but for company incurring such expenditure, the assessee would have paid for the same. The fact of this case are clearly distinguishable because amount of loan received was not in the nature of expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L. Alagusundaram Chettiar on 6 October, 1976
(ii) In L. Alagusundaram Chettiar's case (supra), the issue before the Madras High Court was whether a loan taken by the Director through employee of the company can be treated as dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Act. In that case, the Managing Director had admitted before the Assessing Officer that whenever he needed money, he would ask his employee to withdraw from the company and advance the same to the Director. In these circumstances it was held that the Managing Director had derived benefit which could be treated as dividend under section 2(6A)(e). This decision was not with reference to the fact whether loan constituted benefit under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. There is also no admission by the Managing Director that overdrawls were made through the companies. In fact, there is no finding whether the assessees had also credit balances or some other investments in the companies.
K.S. Malik vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 November, 1979
(iii) In K.S. Malik's case (supra), the issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the amount of loan borrowed by the Managing Director, written off in the books of account of the company, constituted a benefit under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The High Court held that there was remission of liability in favour of the Director and the same constituted a perquisite under section 2(24)(iv), In these cases, there is no remission of the liability.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs C. Kulandaivelu Konar (Decd.) By L. Rs. on 8 January, 1975
(iv) The next case relied on by the ld. D.R. is C. Kulandaivelu Konar's case (supra). The issue before the Madras High Court was whether interest free loan given by a company to Managing Director amounted to a 'benefit' when the company was paying interest on its borrowings. In the light of these facts, the Hon'ble High Court held that interest referable to the amounts borrowed by the Managing Director constituted a benefit because the company was paying interest on the amounts borrowed. In the present cases, there is no finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the companies were paying interest on their borrowings.