Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi

302 ITR 140Reported decision2008#13977 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Issues it is cited on

section 295carry forward of lossesbusiness expediencyrule of consistencysection 260section 260asection 40a(3)section 143(1)(a)section 40asection 29revenue expendituresection 28

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi

Honey Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA - 163 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Honey Enterprises

ITA - 537 / 2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Honey Enterprises

ITA - 260 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/537/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/377/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/260/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/163/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…to set off other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of the feature film and this would distort the true profits of the Assessee. 9. Ms Kapila next referred to the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi: (2008) 302 ITR 140 wherein the Supreme Court had held that unamortized expenses, which were permitted to be carried forward in the subsequent year under Rule 9A of the Rules were not in the nature of carry forward of losses and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of Section 80 of the Act. She contended that since the carry forward of unamortized expens…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Joseph Valakuzhi (302 ITR 140) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax