Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 vs M/S. Srishti Securities Pvt. Ltd on 22 January, 2009 cites

India Cements Ltd., Madras vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 8 December, 1965

Capital expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction under section 37 because the section specifically bars any deduction of expenditure of capital nature. But section 36 is differently worded. There is no bar in section 36(1)(iii) to allowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed which has been utilised for purchase of a capital asset. The position of law in this regard was explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 and State of Madras Vs. G.J. Coelhi (1964) 53 ITR 186."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 495 - S M Sikri - Full Document

State Of Madras vs C. J. Coelho on 30 April, 1964

In the State of Madras Vs. G.J. Coelho, 53 ITR 186 the Supreme Court was dealing ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:16:18 ::: (-9-) with the deduction claimed under Section 5(e) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955. While considering the issue the court was pleased to observe that in principle there is no distinction between interest paid on capital borrowed for the acquisition of a plantation and interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of an existing plantation. Both are for the purpose of the plantation. The court further observed that the payment of interest on the amount borrowed for the purpose of the ig plantations when the whole transaction of purchase and the working of the plantations was viewed as an integrated whole was so closely related to the plantations that the expenditure could be said to be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the plantations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 89 - S M Sikri - Full Document

State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952

Capital expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction under section 37 because the section specifically bars any deduction of expenditure of capital nature. But section 36 is differently worded. There is no bar in section 36(1)(iii) to allowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed which has been utilised for purchase of a capital asset. The position of law in this regard was explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 and State of Madras Vs. G.J. Coelhi (1964) 53 ITR 186."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 660 - M P Sastri - Full Document
1   2 Next