Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.32 seconds)Section 20 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. on 28 November, 1996
"Section 18 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, refers to computation of income by way of interest on securities, section 19 inter alia states that subject to provisions of section 21, income chargeable under section 18 shall be computed after making deductions which are enumerated in that section. Section 20 refers to deduction from interest on securities in the case of a Banking Company. Section 20(2) states, inter alia that expenses deducted under section 20(1) shall not from part of deductions admissible under sections 30, 37 for the purpose of computing business profits. Section 80M on the other hand comes under chapter VI of the Income Tax Act, chapter VI-A refers to special deduction. As held in numerous cases by this Court, Chapter VI-A constitutes a separate code dealing with deductions to be made in computing total income. Section 80M refers to special deduction in respect of intercorporate dividend. As held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. (supra), in order to compute deduction under section 80M, one has to compute the amount of dividend in accordance with the Act after deducting interest on monies borrowed for earning such income. The point to be noted is that deductions contemplated by section 80M referred to actual expenditure whereas, deductions contemplated by section 20(1) are estimated proportionate expenses and interests. Therefore, one cannot import deductions from interest on securities in the case of Banking Company under section 20(1) into the deductions contemplated by section 80M.
Section 18 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Central India Industries Ltd on 7 September, 1971
In this regard we may also refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Central bank of India whereby the High Court of Bombay, expressed as under:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs United Collieries Ltd. on 6 April, 1992
In the case of CIT v. United Collieries Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 857 (Cal) the Calcutta High Court has held that the special deduction under section 80M is allowable on the net dividend which is arrived at after taking into account actual expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the dividend income and that there was no scope or any estimate of expenditure being made and there was no scope for allocation of notional expenditure unless the facts of a particular case so warranted. In our view, section 20(1) contains a rule of Proportionality of expenses and interests and rule is based on estimation of expenditure whereas, section 80M is allowable on net dividend arrived at after taking into account actual expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning such dividend unless facts of a particular case warrant otherwise. Therefore, we answer the later question in favour of the assessee-bank and against the department."
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
Negatively put, reserves are not designed to meet any liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets which are discernible from the balance sheet. In commercial world reserves are something which are set apart for future use of enjoyment. On certain occasions reserve funds are shown as part of the owner's interest. Our views in this regard are fortified by the decisions rendered in the cases of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC), CIT v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 (SC) Duncan Bros.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. on 11 August, 1976
Negatively put, reserves are not designed to meet any liability, contingency, commitment or diminution in the value of assets which are discernible from the balance sheet. In commercial world reserves are something which are set apart for future use of enjoyment. On certain occasions reserve funds are shown as part of the owner's interest. Our views in this regard are fortified by the decisions rendered in the cases of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC), CIT v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1953) 24 ITR 499 (SC) Duncan Bros.