Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 29 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad ... on 24 February, 1959
5. No doubt there is a big difference between profit earned with own capital and profit earned with borrowed capital and such a difference could have been taken into account by the Income-tax Officer while making an estimate. If the Commissioner had set aside the estimate on the ground that the vital fact that the business was carried on with own capital and not with borrowed capital has been ignored by the Income-tax Officer, there may not have been any difficulty in upholding that order. But, when he proposes to add back an exact item in the profit and loss account, he was relying on the rejected books which he could not do as held by the Bench of this court in Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 369. There is also a further difficulty if Section 40, as argued by learned counsel, is to be taken into account even after making an estimate. When there are certain other deductions which are to be disallowed such as wealth-tax payment in Section 40, can it be said that after making an estimate, the wealth-tax charged in the profit and loss account should again be added back to the profit. This example illustrates how the contention of the Revenue, that Section 40(b) makes a difference in the situation, is untenable. In our considered opinion, the answer to the question has to be in the negative and in favour of the assesses.
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1