Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 7 October, 2004 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. on 3 February, 1998

20. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the consultancy given by the aforesaid person was on various technical aspect fields relating to the assessee‟s business only and this does not lead to any creation of new asset. Such a technical assistance was solely for the purpose of improving the existing manufacturing process and not for any new business. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v/s Kirloskar Tractors Ltd., [1998] 231 ITR 849 (Bom.).
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 28 - R P Desai - Full Document

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 11 November, 1954

25. The assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs.29,99,30,000, on account of advertisement on TV, the captionwise details of such advertisement expenditure was given before the Assessing Officer, which has been incorporated at Page-15 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, from the said summary of expenditure, observed that the assessee has incurred expenditure on advertisement of product brand like, exterior paint brand, royal brand and tractor brands, which fall in the category of product advertisement and hence they are revenue in nature. However, there are certain expenditure which have been incurred for creating a brand image of the corporate and these are enduring in nature and falls in the category of capital expenditure. After calling for the detail submissions from the assessee, he held that certain expenditure incurred on TV advertising, relates to corporate brand image which is capital expenditure and for coming to this conclusion, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and CIT v/s Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd., [2009] 315 ITR 134. This has been confirmed by the DRP also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 406 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. on 18 March, 1970

Thus, once the claim of interest in profit & loss account is only Rs.8,79,000, then such a huge disallowance of interest is not justified. Now coming to the contention of the Revenue that the advances have been given out of cash credit account, it is seen from the perusal of the said bank statement that the assessee had sufficient balance and at no point of time there was any negative balance on which interest can be said to be chargeable. Thus, it cannot be held that the assessee has given advance / loan to the subsidiary company directly out of interest bearing funds. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained, firstly, on the ground that the advance / loan given to subsidiary was solely for the purpose of assessee‟s business and secondly, the assessee has huge interest free funds with it at the time of giving such advance and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders (supra) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), such a disallowance of interest is uncalled for. Accordingly, same is deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is treated as allowed.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 933 - Full Document

S.A. Builders Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit on 20 June, 2002

Thus, once the claim of interest in profit & loss account is only Rs.8,79,000, then such a huge disallowance of interest is not justified. Now coming to the contention of the Revenue that the advances have been given out of cash credit account, it is seen from the perusal of the said bank statement that the assessee had sufficient balance and at no point of time there was any negative balance on which interest can be said to be chargeable. Thus, it cannot be held that the assessee has given advance / loan to the subsidiary company directly out of interest bearing funds. The disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained, firstly, on the ground that the advance / loan given to subsidiary was solely for the purpose of assessee‟s business and secondly, the assessee has huge interest free funds with it at the time of giving such advance and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders (supra) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), such a disallowance of interest is uncalled for. Accordingly, same is deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is treated as allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 55 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1