Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Mysore Sugar Co., Ltd on 3 May, 1962

23. In my opinion the amount written off was allowable as business loss/expenditure because after the assignment of debt the appellant permanently lost its right to receive any further sums from Marvel. The appellant had advanced loan to Marvel in the course of its business and for business considerations. The loan debtor defaulted on repaying principal and ultimately loan amount became irrecoverable despite appellant obtaining decree from Civil Court in Bangalore. The loss was thus incurred by the appellant in the course of business and therefore it was fully allowable. Ratio laid down in the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mysore Sugar Limited (46 ITR 649); Indoor Mlwa United Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (55 ITR 736); CIT Vs. Jwalaprasada Radha Kishan (107 ITR 540) and CIT vs. Inden Biselers (181 ITR 69) support appellant's claim. Apart from the above decisions, appellant's claim also appeared to be supported by recent decisions rendered by Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 125 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Inden Biselers on 7 September, 1989

23. In my opinion the amount written off was allowable as business loss/expenditure because after the assignment of debt the appellant permanently lost its right to receive any further sums from Marvel. The appellant had advanced loan to Marvel in the course of its business and for business considerations. The loan debtor defaulted on repaying principal and ultimately loan amount became irrecoverable despite appellant obtaining decree from Civil Court in Bangalore. The loss was thus incurred by the appellant in the course of business and therefore it was fully allowable. Ratio laid down in the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mysore Sugar Limited (46 ITR 649); Indoor Mlwa United Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (55 ITR 736); CIT Vs. Jwalaprasada Radha Kishan (107 ITR 540) and CIT vs. Inden Biselers (181 ITR 69) support appellant's claim. Apart from the above decisions, appellant's claim also appeared to be supported by recent decisions rendered by Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts as well.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Luxmi Devi Sugar Mills P. Ltd. on 14 September, 1990

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore, ... vs The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd on 27 April, 1971

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 60 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chemical Constructions on 24 November, 1998

"I have considered submissions of the A/R and perused details of payments made. As per regulations of the local authorities the transporters are required to produce numerous documents before the Octroi authorities when the truck passes through the check post. Each local authority has its own set of rules regarding documentation and the truck drivers being semi literate, the deficiencies can be found in the documents. Having regard to the lengthy procedures delays occur on many occasions and to avoid delays in transportation of goods transporter is required to deposit amounts on account of deficiency in documentations. The payments made at local check posts are therefore more compensatory in nature and not penal in character. The payments are not made for infraction of legal provision but are for regularizing the procedural deficiencies. In my considered opinion the payments made at different check posts by transporters were compensatory in nature to avoid delays in delivery of goods and not for infraction of law. Applying the ratio laid down in the judicial decisions cited before me I hold that the disallowance of Rs.5,36,769/- was not justified and the same is accordingly deleted."
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - R J Babu - Full Document

The C.I.T., West Bengal-Ii, Calcutta vs Radha Krishan Nandlal on 6 March, 1975

23. In my opinion the amount written off was allowable as business loss/expenditure because after the assignment of debt the appellant permanently lost its right to receive any further sums from Marvel. The appellant had advanced loan to Marvel in the course of its business and for business considerations. The loan debtor defaulted on repaying principal and ultimately loan amount became irrecoverable despite appellant obtaining decree from Civil Court in Bangalore. The loss was thus incurred by the appellant in the course of business and therefore it was fully allowable. Ratio laid down in the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Mysore Sugar Limited (46 ITR 649); Indoor Mlwa United Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (55 ITR 736); CIT Vs. Jwalaprasada Radha Kishan (107 ITR 540) and CIT vs. Inden Biselers (181 ITR 69) support appellant's claim. Apart from the above decisions, appellant's claim also appeared to be supported by recent decisions rendered by Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 31 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi-Iv vs M/S Goyal Mg Gases Limited on 8 March, 2016

The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goyal M. G. Gases Ltd (163 Taxman 541 ) considered a similar claim for write off. In this case the assessee had granted bill discounting facilities to M/s Kedia Castle from whom Rs.4.24 crores was outstanding On failure of the debtor to repay the debt the assessee filed winding up petition against the debtor in the Calcutta High Court. While winding up proceedings were pending; debtor was declared as sick company by BIFR and therefore the assessee considered the debt as irrecoverable and wrote off the sum in its books. The assessee's claim for bad debts was disallowed by A.O. on the ground that such claim was not permissible because conditions of Sec 36(1) (vii) read with Sec 36(2) were not fulfilled. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal allowed the claim and on further appeal the Delhi High Court held that since the debtor was declared sick company by BIFR; the debt had become irrecoverable and therefore the assessee's claim for bad debt was rightly allowed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai vs M/S General Insurance Corporation on 25 September, 2006

15. Applying the ratio laid down in this decision I find that existing free reserves and share premium account are used for buyback of shares which does not result in permanent reduction of the share capital and no benefit of enduring nature is derived. In the appellant's case the buyback of shares was effected by utilizing its free reserves. In my considered opinion therefore the expenditure incurred on buyback of shares was not a capital expenditure as there was neither permanent change in the capital structure of the company nor benefit of enduring nature was received by the appellant. The A.O. is therefore directed to deleted the disallowance of Rs.28,21,321/-"
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next