Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-14 vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Erthwhile ... on 11 February, 2019 cites

P. Balakrishnan, Commissioner Of ... vs Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. on 25 October, 1999

We notice that the Kerala High Court in case of P. Balakrishnan, Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd.1 had examined whether the amounts spent by the assessee towards contribution to school in which children of the employees were studying, would be hit by 1 243 ITR 284 ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:06:10 ::: Priya Soparkar 4 22 itxa 1765-16-o Section 40A(9) of the Act and therefore, not allowable as deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The High Court had allowed the expenditure and held and observed as under:-
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S Itc Ltd. on 4 April, 2016

"13. Learned senior counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. India Tobacco Company Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 182. There the assessee- company constructed a hospital. At the time when the hospital was ready, the Employees' State Insurance Scheme came into operation and the Government of Bihar required the hospital. Some negotiations had taken place between the assessee and the Government and also the workers' union. On the basis of the said settlement, the assessee had given an amount of Rs. 50,000 to the Government for the purchase of equipment for the hospital. The company had two kinds of employees, viz., those who were covered by the provisions of the Employees' Insurance Scheme which provides for hospital benefits and also employees who were not covered by the scheme. By making the payment of Rs. 50,000, the company obtained a privilege of getting its employees who were not covered by the provisions of the Employees' Insurance Scheme, treated in the above hospital. There it was held that the assessee by making the above one lumpsum payment, not only got rid of a liability to make recurring annual payments for the treatment of its workers who were not covered by the State Insurance Scheme at the hospital of the Government but also obtained this advantage or privilege for an indefinite period, and hence the expenditure in question was capital in character and hence ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:06:10 ::: Priya Soparkar 5 22 itxa 1765-16-o not admissible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. The facts of the above case do not have any similarity with the facts of the present case and the principles laid down in the above case have no application. In the case in hand, the expenditure met by the assessee was wholly and exclusively for the welfare of its employees and also for carrying on the business of the assessee-company more efficiently by having a contented labour force. It was neither a donation covered under Section 40A(9) nor of a capital in nature not covered under Section 37(1) of the Act. Hence, the Tribunal is fully justified in allowing the above expenditure towards contribution for the running of the FACT school, as an expenditure for the smooth functioning of the business of the assessee and also an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the welfare of the employees of the assessee and thus allowable under Section 37(1) as well as Section 40A(10) of the Act. Thus questions Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 14 March, 2001

5. Similarly, Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 1 had occasion to examine whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in establishing a club to carry on welfare activities can be claimed by way of expenditure under section 37(1) ignoring the limitation contained under Section 40A(9) of the Act. The 1 252 ITR 43 ::: Uploaded on - 15/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 01:06:10 ::: Priya Soparkar 6 22 itxa 1765-16-o High Court while dismissing the revenue's appeal and approving the view of the Tribunal in this context observed as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1