Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.75 seconds)
M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. ... vs Acit, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai on 4 November, 2025
cites
Section 224 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Section 288 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Madhav Prasad Jatia vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P., ... on 17 April, 1979
19. Apart from relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in
the case of S A Buildiers ltd reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC), the ld.AR placed
reliance in the case of Madhav Prasad Jantia vs CIT UP AIR 1979 SC
1291, it was held that the expression "for the purpose of business occurring
under this provision is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose
of earning income, profit or gains".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd on 10 April, 1964
In ITA No. 4901/MUM/2024 our opinion the
Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.'s case (supra)
had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court
in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) where a similar issue had
arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have
been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid
out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft
account for the running of the business and in these circumstances the
appellant was entitled to claim the deductions. The Supreme Court
noted that the argument had considerable force, but considering the
fact that the contention had not been advanced earlier it did not require
to be answered.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 17 August, 1971
Similar view has been expressed in the
case of CIT vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd (1964) 53 TR 140, and CIT
Vs Birla Cotton Spinning Mills (1971) 82 ITR 166.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960
In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that money is
expended, not necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit,
but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order
to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business as held in the case of
CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co (1960) 38 ITR 601.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. on 18 March, 1970
• CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom)
• CIT v. Hotel Savera (1999) 239 ITR 795 (Mad)
• CIT v. TIN. Box Co. (2003) 260 ITR 637 (Del)