Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Vijayshree Alloys Pune Private Ltd.,, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 16 March, 2018 cites

M/S. Southern Technologies Ltd vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Coimbatore on 11 January, 2010

8. We further find that the Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Cotton Blossom India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after considering CBDT Circular No. 762 (supra) has allowed payment of premium on life insurance of Directors under „Employment - Employee Scheme‟ of LIC as business expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 175 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992

The Ld CIT(A) has also made reference of the provision of Section 28(vi) and Section 17(3) of the I.T. Act. As per Section 28(vi), any receipt under keyman insurance policy like maturity proceeds, receipts on account of an unfortunate contingency , bonus etc., accruing to the assessee firm is taxable in its hand under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or Profession'. As 6 ITA No.1048/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 per Section 17(3) of the Act, any receipt under keyman insurance policy including bonus by an assessee from an employer or former employer was to be treated as profit in view of salary in his hands. The Ld CIT(A) has also referred decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Co.(P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979), 118 ITR 261 (SC) holding that the fact that somebody other than the assessee is also benefited should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 2319 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd. on 25 November, 1994

Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd. (1995), 214 ITR 1 (Bom.) on the issue of allowability of expenditure u/s. 37, that it is not essential that it should be necessary, legally or otherwise to incur the same or that it should directly or immediately benefit the business of the assessee. Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The first appellate order on the issue as discussed is reasoned one and supportedM/s. Agrawal Enterprises A.Y. 2005-06 Page of 7 with the CBDIT Circular No. 762 dated 18.2.98 as well as the above referred decisions, hence we are not inclined to interfere therewith. The same is upheld. Ground No. 1 is accordingly rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 41 - Full Document
1