Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh And Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 August, 1979
It has also been contended that the term 'current repairs' as envisaged by section 31 does not suggest any distinction between revenue or capital in nature of expenditure. It has been contended that the only requirement for allowance of expenditure is that the repair/renewal should not result in any increase of production capacity or the capacity of the hotel. It has been contended that the condition regarding the expenditure to be of revenue nature and not of capital nature applies only when the expenditure is claimed as deduction under section 37(1). Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP), CIT v. Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 523 (Bom) and Asstt. CIT v. Dyer's Stone Lime Co. (P) Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 8 (Del) have been referred to in support.
Commissioner Of Income Tax.Karnataka ... vs Chowgule & Co. Ltd on 11 January, 1996
It has also been contended that the term 'current repairs' as envisaged by section 31 does not suggest any distinction between revenue or capital in nature of expenditure. It has been contended that the only requirement for allowance of expenditure is that the repair/renewal should not result in any increase of production capacity or the capacity of the hotel. It has been contended that the condition regarding the expenditure to be of revenue nature and not of capital nature applies only when the expenditure is claimed as deduction under section 37(1). Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168 (AP), CIT v. Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 523 (Bom) and Asstt. CIT v. Dyer's Stone Lime Co. (P) Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 8 (Del) have been referred to in support.
C.I.T., Trivandrum vs M/S Anand Theatres on 12 May, 2000
62. I have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record, as also the cited decision. As regards the statutory provisions from section 32(30) to section 37 of Income Tax Act, it may be noted that the provisions of section 30 apply in respect of repairs to the premises/building used for business purposes; and provisions of section 31 apply to repairs in respect of machinery, plant or furniture used for business purposes. Thus, it is the provision of section 30 which applies to the repairs of a building and not the provisions of section 31. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres, Etc. Etc. (2000) 160 CTR (SC) 492 that a hotel building is not a plant. It may also be noted that the expenses pertaining to repair become allowable under section 37(1) only when the same do not fall in any of the provisions of section 30 to section 36. When the expenses incurred on repairs are claimed under the residuary provision of section 37(1) the same are allowable only when these are outside the scope of capital expenditure as has been specifically provided in the relevant statutory provision. In section 30(a)(ii), the expenditure, which is allowable, is that incurred on current repairs to the premises. The construction of attached toilets/bathrooms in the existing rooms does not fall within current repairs inasmuch as the current repairs referred to restoration of the asset by such repairs as are needed at the moment. The toilets/bathrooms, for which the expenses have been incurred have been freshly/newly provided in the existing rooms. Besides, the construction of toilet/bathroom does result in new benefit/advantage of enduring nature. In that view of the matter, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking a circumspect view of the entire fact situation, I find the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of the said building repairs to be neither allowable under section 30 nor under section 37(1). In the result the learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on this count is reversed and the entire addition made by assessing officer is upheld.
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Yoganand Textiles on 20 September, 1991
CIT v. Yoganand Textile (1993) 202 TTR 869 (Guj) has also been referred to contending that it has been held therein that whatever expenditure is incurred by the partner in respect of such work done for the firm cannot be considered as remuneration or salary given by the firm to the partner and would be deductible as expenditure. It has also been contended that as regards the mentioning of Rs. 15,171 on account of petrol, etc., debited to the P&L a/c, the same comprises of Rs. 6,075 towards repairs and maintenance, Rs. 9,095 towards petrol. It has been contended that this petrol expenditure is after 12-9-1990, the date of search, and the same was incurred on a car which was used by the assessee's counsel after the incident of search, for visiting Income Tax department in connection with the proceedings undertion 132(5), taking copies of orders of seized material, proceedings under section 131, etc. In para 2 on page No. 19 of paper book, being assessee's written submissions before Commissioner (Appeals), it has also been contended that as regards the other conveyance expenses debited to P&L a/c of assessee, the same are expenses incurred by employees for the purpose of business.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Govind Ram Agarwal on 17 October, 2000
It has been contended that the many of the room boys, shift incharge and sweepers, etc. take food or tea or refreshment depending upon the timings of their duties. It has been contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has casually upheld 50 per cent of the disallowance. Asstt. CIT v. Govind Ram Agarwal (2001) 71 TTJ (Cal)(TM) 1 : (2001) 76 ITD 120 (Cal)(TM) has been cited in support of the contention that in the absence of full cross-examination the statements cannot be relied upon.
K.C. Gokani vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 June, 1985
It has been contended that even the run between the home and office is of 12-14 kilometers, and in addition thereto, the remaining run is there on account of Commissioner/Police department, tourism department, income-tax proceedings, local purchases of house-keeping material, and building maintenance and, repairs. It has been contended that the amount of conveyance allowance paid to each of the partner is reasonable. It has been contended that the conveyance allowance could have been accounted for on actual basis but, the partners, in their collective wisdom, thought to avoid any occasion of wasteful expenditure by any partner and to avoid any misunderstanding on this count, and so considered it more prudent to fix the sum which each partner can spend on the conduct of the firm's business. K.C. Gokani v. Income Tax Officer (1985) 14 TTD 461 (Jp) has been cited and it has been contended that the Tribunal has held therein that the assessee was in receipt of conveyance allowance which was paid in the interest of business and proportionate to the business and the same was reimbursement of expenditure incurred, and merely because it was called as an allowance, its character does not change from reimbursement to allowance.
1