Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs S. B. Ranjit Singh. on 9 December, 1954
But this views has not been accepted by the Bombay, Patna and Punjab High Court, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranjit Singh a sum of Rs. 24,904 incurred by the assessee in resurfacing with concrete the approach roads to the Imperial Hotel during the relevant account period was claimed as a deduction under section 10 (2) (v) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Falshaw J. (with whom Bhandari C.J. concurred) observed as follows :
Ramkishan Sunderlal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 December, 1950
Now the Indian decisions on the point which have been brought to our notice speak with a divided voice. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Ramkishan Sunderlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax has held that the expression "current repairs" restricts its meaning to petty repairs usually carried our periodically and will not include repair or renewal costing a large sum of money which has to be spent on extensive repairs after long intervals.
New Shorrock Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 March, 1950
In the Bombay case of New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee company spent a sum of Rs. 30,557 for replacing certain parts in 646 looms out of 864 looms in certain textile mills. The particular part that was replaced was a device which helped in keeping a certain tension for the working of the looms. The new parts that had been used for replacement were lighter in weight than the old parts and conformed to the international labour standard and were superior to the old parts and these new parts had to be used because the old parts were not available in the market and if an attempt had been made to prepare parts similar in kind or to acquire them, the cost would have been disproportionately high. It also appears that the old looms had been worked with these old parts for a period of; 60 years as no need had arisen during all these years for replacing the old parts. The assessee claimed the amount spent as an allowable deduction under section 10 (2) (v). Chagla C.J. held that the expression "current repairs" means expenditure which is not for the purpose of the renewal or restoration but for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset, which does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give to the assessee any new or different advantage and they must be repairs which are attended to as and when the need for them arises. It was further held in this case that the question as to when a building, machinery, plant or furniture requires repairs and when the need arises must be decided by not any academic or theoretical test but by the test of commercial expediency. The learned Chief Justice did not accept the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court as correct. The following observation of the learned Chief Justice may be set out hereunder :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... vs Rama Sugar Mills Ltd., Bobbili on 27 May, 1951
The next case is of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sree Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. a decision of a Division Bench of Satyanarayana Rao and Raghava Rao JJ. There in that case Satyanarayana Rao J. observed at page 197 as follows :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. on 11 April, 1957
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. a sum of Rs. 17,256 was spent on machinery repairs, namely, for replacing a fire box for locomotive, for replacing a cast iron headstock for rollers and for purchase of a cost iron sublimer for generating sulphur gas and it was claimed that these replacements were necessary because of fair wear and tear. Ramaswami J. (Imam J. concurring) held that a renewal may be a repair or reconstruction. The test is whether the act of replacement that the entire machinery or substantial part of replacement is one which is in substance replacement of defective parts or replacement of entire machinery or substantial part of the entire machinery. It was further; held that; the expression "current repairs to machinery" which occurs in section 10 (2) (v) must be interpreted to mean repairs to machinery in the current accounting year land the word "current" is; used in contradistinction to past or arrear repairs. The learned judge dissented from the Allahabad view and point out that there is nothing in section 10 (2) (v) to suggest that the expenditure on repairs cannot be all, owed as a proper deduction if the repairs are not petty, inasmuch as the section does not say anything about the magnitude of the expenditure. The deduction claimed by the assessee was therefore, allowed under section 10 (2) (v).
R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning And ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 31 October, 1956
In the case of Bansilal Abirchand Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax which is a decision of the Nagpur High Court, the assessee, who owned a spinning mill, incurred in the year of account an expenditure of Rs. 9,330 on the replacement of cylinder in a sizing machine of the mill and spent a sum of Rs. 15,000 on renovation of the wooden flooring of the spinning department of the mill. It was held by V. R. Sen J. and G. P. Bhutt J. that the said amounts were revenue expenditure and could be allowed as expenditure incurred for current repairs under section 10 (2) (v). It was pointed out that the term "repair" in the expression "current repairs" occurring in section 10 (2) (v) is to be understood in contradistinction to reconstruction and when the existing asset is only maintained and preserved and no new asset is created by replacement or improvement, the case is one of repairs and not reconstruction. The cases decided by the Punjab, Patna and Bombay High Courts were followed in this case. Our attention was also drawn to a Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd., which held that a comparatively small expenditure incurred in renewing the bodies of certain lorries fell within the definition of "current repairs" and was allowable as a deduction under section 10 (2) (v).
Mrs. Kusumben D. Mahadevia vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 30 March, 1960
It was also argued that we should call upon the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of case stating facts which would enable the court to determine the question whether the claim is admissible under section 10 (2) (xv). It is, however, well-settled that it is not open to the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 66 (4) to raise a new question and to require the Tribunal to entertain a fresh line of enquiry, hear the parties in regard to the same and record fresh findings of fact which would enable the assessee or the Commissioner to advance a case which had not been made before the income-tax authorities or the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has further pointed out in the case of Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. Commissioner of Income-tax that section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act does not confer on the High Court jurisdiction to decide a different question of law not arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. "It is possible that the same question of law may involve different approaches for its solution, and the High Court may amplify the question to take in all the approaches. But the question must still be one which was before the Tribunal and was decided by it. It must not be an entirely different question which the Tribunal never considered."
The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 12 May, 1959
It was also argued that this court is not entitled to look into the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer and the materials or findings contained therein, inasmuch as these orders are not parts of the statement of the case. But the Rules of the High Court require that these orders and records of certain proceedings before the income-tax department have to be printed in the paper book in a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Moreover in the case of In re Gregory Panckridge J. has pointed out that the pint of law to be decided by a High Court in an income-tax reference is not a hypothetical point but specific point raised by the facts of a particular case and the documents and proceedings annexed to the statements of the case are annexed for the consideration of the High Court which is entitled to look into them even if there be no specific reference to them in the body of the Commissioners statement. (See also New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax where it has been pointed out that it is facts in the order of the Tribunal or in the record before it which should form the foundation for the raising of any question of law).