Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.27 seconds)
M/S. The Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 June, 2022 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Infosys Technologies Ltd on 4 January, 2008

27. The co-ordinate Bench in the matter of CIT & ANOTHER vs INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED reported in (2014)360 ITR 174(Kar) while examining the claim of the assessee to treat the expenditure incurred by it for installing the traffic signals as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act, had held " for purpose of business" used in Section 37(1) of the Act should not be limited to meaning of earning profit alone
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

Rio Tinto Orissa Mining Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), ... on 13 March, 2019

3.4.2 Respectfully following the above cited decision of the ITAT - Delhi Bench in the case of Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT (supra), we uphold the assessee's claim for the expense of Rs.25 lakhs paid as contribution to FIMI to be allowed as revenue expenditure incurred in the course and for the purposes of the assessee's business and consequently delete the disallowance made by the AO in this regard. We hold and direct accordingly." 6.7 Respectfully following the aforesaid view, we hold that the amount paid by assessee to FIMI as contribution is allowable as revenue expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Madras Refineries Ltd. on 8 January, 1997

Page 21 ITA Nos. 1964 & 1965/Bang/2018 7.5 Considering the business activity undertaken by assessee, the roads on which the heavy vehicles are deployed requires periodic maintenance and repairs. There is no dispute that assessee is the leaseholder on the land and to extract iron ore from mining lease areas assessee needs to maintain the road within the leased area, time and again, due to wear and tear. Such expenditure cannot be in any form whatsoever be termed as capital in nature. 7.6 The decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd. (supra) considered identical issue by observing as under:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

State Pollution Control Board Odisha vs M/S Swastik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Anr on 9 January, 2014

We note that in NMDC case (supra), Hon'ble Hydrabad Tribunal followed decision of Hon'ble Kolkatta High Court in the case of ShyamSel Ltd (supra) and State Pollution Control Board vs. Swastik Ispat (P) Ltd (supra), wherein identical types of payments made to remedy the river pollution caused by the parties were held to be compensatory in nature. Hence the provisions of Explanation 1 to sec.37 will not apply to these payments. We also note that Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 171 observed that, these payments are necessary to be made by the mining lease holders. Hence there is merit in the submission of Ld.Counsel that, without making these payments, assessee could not have resumed the mining operations. Hence, these expenses are incidental to carrying on the business and hence allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act."
National Green Tribunal Cites 51 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next