Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 216 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. on 28 November, 1991
In this regard he relied on the Calcutta High Court decisions in the case of Coates of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 373 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs. Price Water-house (1994) 207 ITR 564 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 553 (Cal). The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the AO and argued that the plea taken by the assessee's authorised representative is entirely a new one and there is no evidence before the authorities below that these expenses do not include any expenditure which has been incurred on motor car. The assessee cannot take this plea at this stage since it involved investigation into new facts. He also argued that s. 37(3A) has got entirely different scope of application. Sec. 37(3A) puts a restriction on the expenditure to be incurred which means it is a restricted section while s. 37(1) which consisted of a non obstante clause relates to the deduction of expenditure. Sec. 37(1) excludes expenses which are otherwise allowable under s. 30 to 36 only for the purpose of the deduction of balance expenditure under s, 37(1). The restrictive section is applicable to all the expenses allowable under ss. 30 to 37(1).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs International Computers Ltd. on 9 April, 1981
9. The next ground of appeal relates to the non-allowance of additional depreciation on computer and paper-copier amounting to Rs. 99,689. According to the assessee the AO without discussing or recording a finding as to whether computer and paper-copier are office appliances, had simply disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee merely mentioning: "Less: On computer and plain paper-copiers not admissible (FL 134, 146, 147, 155, 167 & 168)" The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing: 'It would appeal that the AO has disallowed the claim of extra shift allowance on these two assets treating them as office appliances". The CIT(A) held that the data processing equipment not to be office appliance but treated the photo-copier to be office appliance. He relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Computers Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 1 (Bom) and the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Tarun Commercial AMs Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Guj) 148: (1985) 151 ITR 75 (Guj) and also on the decision of the Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Daks Office Semces (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1989) 34 M (BomXSB) 604 .. (1989) 30 ITD 223 (Bom) (SB). He vehemently stated that the assessee- company has simply leased out the machinery and this machinery was not at all used in the office of the assessee. This was not used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and cannot be regarded to be office appliances. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... vs M/S. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd., Bangalore on 20 March, 1998
2. The first ground of appeal is general in nature. The second ground of appeal regarding the allowance by the CIT(A) of the assessee's claim for investment allowance stands dismissed as it is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 146 CTR (SC) 110.. (1998) 97 Taxinan 435 (SC).
Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 June, 1971
10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A) in para 5 of his order has held in the case of the assessee that computer was not office appliance. We also find that there is no finding by the AO in the assessment order as to whether the computer is an office appliance or not. The disallowance is merely based on presumption that these assets are office appliances. Following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tr'bunal in the case of Daks Office SeMces (P) Ltd. (supra) we hereby allow this ground of the assessee. The AO is directed to allow the assessee additional depreciation as claimed by the assessee.
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Tarun Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. on 1 April, 1976
9. The next ground of appeal relates to the non-allowance of additional depreciation on computer and paper-copier amounting to Rs. 99,689. According to the assessee the AO without discussing or recording a finding as to whether computer and paper-copier are office appliances, had simply disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee merely mentioning: "Less: On computer and plain paper-copiers not admissible (FL 134, 146, 147, 155, 167 & 168)" The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing: 'It would appeal that the AO has disallowed the claim of extra shift allowance on these two assets treating them as office appliances". The CIT(A) held that the data processing equipment not to be office appliance but treated the photo-copier to be office appliance. He relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. International Computers Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 1 (Bom) and the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Tarun Commercial AMs Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Guj) 148: (1985) 151 ITR 75 (Guj) and also on the decision of the Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Daks Office Semces (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1989) 34 M (BomXSB) 604 .. (1989) 30 ITD 223 (Bom) (SB). He vehemently stated that the assessee- company has simply leased out the machinery and this machinery was not at all used in the office of the assessee. This was not used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and cannot be regarded to be office appliances. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below.
Coates Of India Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 19 September, 1994
In this regard he relied on the Calcutta High Court decisions in the case of Coates of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 373 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs. Price Water-house (1994) 207 ITR 564 (Cal) and in the case of CIT vs. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 553 (Cal). The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the AO and argued that the plea taken by the assessee's authorised representative is entirely a new one and there is no evidence before the authorities below that these expenses do not include any expenditure which has been incurred on motor car. The assessee cannot take this plea at this stage since it involved investigation into new facts. He also argued that s. 37(3A) has got entirely different scope of application. Sec. 37(3A) puts a restriction on the expenditure to be incurred which means it is a restricted section while s. 37(1) which consisted of a non obstante clause relates to the deduction of expenditure. Sec. 37(1) excludes expenses which are otherwise allowable under s. 30 to 36 only for the purpose of the deduction of balance expenditure under s, 37(1). The restrictive section is applicable to all the expenses allowable under ss. 30 to 37(1).