How many judgments cite Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand (6 ITR 636), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 30.

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand

6 ITR 636Reported decision1938#2650 most cited

What is Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand authority for?

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · wholly and exclusively · commercial expediency · unremunerative expense · profit not necessary for deduction · Section 37 · Section 57(iii) · expenditure allowance

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 30 Section 35D Section 36

Issues it is cited on

section 57(iii)section 57 commercial expediency section 37(1)final assessment order section 37 section 133(6)income from other sources previous year section 143(2)appeal before the tribunal transfer

Judgments citing Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J.B.Roy

ITA - 1114 / 2005HC Delhi11 Oct 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(iv)

…any income and that it is sufficient if the assessee is able to prove that the expenditure was incurred „for the purpose‟ of earning the income. It was observed, following the dictum of Lord Thankerton in the case of Hughes vs. Bank of New Zealand (1938) 6 ITR 636 (HL) that it was not necessary to justify an item of debit in the profit and loss account, that there should be an item of credit in the said account. However, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the Revenue, the principle would apply to a genuine case of borrowing and lending and if there are materials to show that the transaction of borrowi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. J.B.Roy

ITA/1114/2005HC Delhi11 Oct 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(iv)

CIT vs. Ekl Appliances Ltd

ITA/1070/2011HC Delhi29 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 92C

…ue. ; It. was further observed that the rule that expenditure can only be justified if there is corresponding· increase in the profits was erroneous. It has been ' classically observed by Lord Thankerton in Hug/lues w. Bank of New ' . ' Zealand, (1938) 6 ITR 636 that "expen~iture in the coui"se of the I trade w~ich is unremunerative is none fhe: less a proper deduction if ·: wholly and exclusively made for the purp,oses of trade. It does not • • . I • ' . require the presence of a receipt on th~ credit side to justify the I ' deduction of an expense". The questiop ~hether an expenditure can…

CIT vs. Ekl Appliances Ltd

ITA - 1068 / 2011HC Delhi29 Mar 2012

Section 260ASection 92C

…ot of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that expenditure can only be justified if there is corresponding increase in the profits was erroneous. It has been classically observed by Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand, (1938) 6 ITR 636 that “expenditure in the course of the trade which is unremunerative is none the less a proper deduction if wholly and exclusively made for the purposes of trade. It does not require the presence of a receipt on the credit side to justify the deduction of an expense”. The question whether an expenditure can be allowed as a deduction only if…