Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)Section 220 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987
The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of this court in Padmavati Jaykrishna (Smt.) v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 153 disallowing the claim for deduction of interest on the amounts borrowed to pay taxes and annuity deposits, held as under (at page 179) :
Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
9. Question No. 2 relates to allowability of interest paid by the assessee on account of late payment of the tax under section 220 of the Act as deducted from its profits and gains from the business. The authorities under the Act disallowed the expenditure on the ground that such liability has not been incurred by the assessee or such interest has not been incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee in this connection relied on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 684 along with the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 188 ITR 277. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee, argued that whenever any statutory impost paid by the assessee by way of damages or penalty or interest is claimed as an allowable expenditure under section 37(1), the assessing authority is to examine whether the payment of such impost is by way of penalty or is compensatory in nature. If the authority comes to the conclusion that the concerned impost is purely compensatory in nature he is under an obligation to allow deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. He relies on the following observations of the apex court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 684, 690 :
S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 March, 1988
14. Question No. 4 relates to the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 2,79,057 on account of surtax liability has deductible expenses for the purpose of business. It has been brought to our notice that the answer is squarely covered by a decision of this court in the case of S. L. M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 176, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nathmal Tolaram on 31 May, 1972
In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Nathmal Tolaram [1973] 88 ITR 234 which was a case arising under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as to the interpretation of section 10(2) (xv) which is corresponding to section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. The question related to the claim of deduction on account of the sales tax liability paid during the year 1957-58, whereas the liability related to the accounting year 1949-50. The Division Bench in that case observed as under (at page 238) :