Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT

84 ITR 735Supreme Court of India1972#18349 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,628 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Petronet Mhb Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…pect of wealth-tax paid on shares held by the assessee was held to be not a permissible deduction under s. 57(iii) even apart from or irrespective of the provisions of s. 58(1A). As against this, we have the decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 735 (SC), wherein wealth-tax paid by the assessee, which was a trading company, on assets held by it for the purpose of its business, was held to be deductible as a business expense under s. 10(2)(xv). These two decisions illustrate that different approaches are necessary when the same item of expenditure has to be judged from the standpoint of s. 37(…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…ect of wealth-tax paid on shares held by the assessee was held to be not a permissible deduction under s. 57(iii) even apart from or irrespectives of the provisions of s. 58(1A). As against this, we have the decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 735 (SC), wherein wealth-tax paid by the assessee, which was a trading company, on assets held by it for the purpose of its business, was held to be deductible as a business expense under s. 10(2)(xv). These two decisions illustrate that different approaches are necessary when the same item of expenditure has to be judged from the standpoint of s. 37(…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…umstances, both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were . absolutely justified in applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 tTR 263 as also in case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. V. CIT tl992] 84 ITR 735 CSC) to hold that such expenditure were needed to be spent by the assessee for the purpose of carrying on its business and are incidental to the business, therefore, any loss shall have to be considered as the revenue cost and not the capital cost. In view of the above findings, the objections (1 & 12) raised by the assessing company against disal…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1210/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant Pan Aaach 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R)

Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Bannerghata Road, Doraisanpalya, Bangalore-560 076 ….Appellant PAN AAACH 4151J Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 17.12.2020. Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2021. O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the…