Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tasati Tea Ltd. on 26 February, 2003
I have considered the views expressed by the AO and the submissions of the A/R of
the appellant. The method of accounting of nursery expenses is also not in dispute.
The assessee has been consistently following the said method of accounting. The
nursery expenses claimed as a deduction is actually the cost of maintenance and
upkeep of immature plants which are used for replanting or infilling, areas where the
tea plants are either dead or become permanently useless. There is no expansion or
cultivation in a anew area. Accordingly, the nursery expenses have been debited to
the P/L Account. The decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Tasati Tea Ltd'
case reported in 262 ITR 388 is squarely application to the facts of the case.
Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in case of
Tasati Tea Ltd, I direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.1,13,48,486/- on
account of 'Nursery expenses'.
M/S Ganapathy & Co.Bangalore vs Commr.Income Tax,Bangalore on 18 January, 2016
I have considered the submission made by the ARs in its behalf in respect of the
aforesaid expenditure together with AO's remand report and came to the conclusion
that on the facts of the case the appellant did maintain all necessary records and
documents at its gardens in respect of the stated expenditure especially when those
records are under scrutiny by different Government authorities and auditors of the
company. I have also noticed that in estimating 20% of such expenditure there is no
ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 AYs 09-10 to 11-12
ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Goodrick Group Ltd. Page 8
specified finding of the AO related to the expenditure which he considered as inflated
by the assessee from details filed. The that the aforesaid expenditure was inflated to
reduce profit was not borne out by evidences. Thus taking into account all the facts I
am of the considered view that the disallowance made by the AO is not justified. The
expenditure so incurred by the assessee company was all related to the business
and deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ganapathy & Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 363, at page 372, 1st
para, 5th line, is that the main ingredients to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming
the deduction u/s. 37(1) is that the expenditure laid out or expended is exclusively for
the purpose of business. From the facts submitted by the ARs and seen from the
details furnished at the hearing of the assessment, I am of the view that the
expenses disallowed by the AO were wholly laid out and expended exclusively for
the purposes of the business.
Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 4 January, 2011
The ARs also brought to my notice the decision of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Friends Clear Agency (P) Ltd vs. CIT,
reported in 332 ITR 269. In this case disallowance of business expenditure on
estimate basis was considered where similar expenses were allowed in totality in
previous years is to be followed in subsequent years. These expenses have always
been allowed prior to AYr. 2009-10 and also have been allowed in AYrs 2011-12 and
subsequent assessment years. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and
also on the facts of the case the disallowance of Rs.3,53,42,998/- made by the AO in
the assessment is hereby deleted. The assessee company gets relief of
Rs.3,5342,998/-.
Travancore Rubber And Tea Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trivandrum on 14 March, 2000
2. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of AGIT 41 ITR 751"