Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Century Spinning Weaving & ... on 2 September, 1946
In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Century Spinning,
Weaving & Manufacturing Co., Ltd.(3), Chagla J. observed, at
page 116:-
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs Finlay Mills Ltd on 1 October, 1951
Viscount Cave's test has also been adopted almost
universally in India: vide Munshi Gulab Singh & Sons V.
Commissioner of Income-tax(2), Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bombay v. Century Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Co.
Ltd.(1), Jagat Bus Service, Saharanpur v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, U. P. & Ajmer Merwara(4), and Commissioner of
Income-tax, Bombay v. Finlay Mills Ltd.(5).
Henriksen (Inspector Of Taxes) vs Grafton Hotel Ltd. on 13 May, 1942
As was otherwise
put by Lord Greene M.R. in Henriksen (Inspector of Taxes) v.
Grafton Hotel Ltd.(2):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. on 22 February, 1949
The expression "once and for all" used by Lord Dunedin has
created some difficulty and it has been contended that where
the payment is not in a lump sum but in instalments it
cannot satisfy the test. Whether a payment be in a lump sum
or by instalments, what has got to be looked to is the
character of the payment. A lump sum payment can as well be
made for liquidating certain recurring claims which are
clearly of a revenue nature, and on the other hand payment
for purchasing a concern which is prima facie an expenditure
of a capital nature may as well be spread over a number of
years and yet retain its character as a capital expenditure.
(Per Mukherjea J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Piggot
Chapman & Co.(1). The character of the payment can be deter-
mined by looking at what is the true nature of the asset
which has been acquired and not by the fact whether it is a
payment in a lump sum or by instalments.
1