Senthilkumara Nadar & Sons. v. CIT

32 ITR 138High Court1957#17639 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Judgments citing Senthilkumara Nadar & Sons. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur vs. Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr Lrs

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

…to Warne’s case [(1919) 2 KB 444] and Von Glehn’s case [(1920) 2 KB 553] held that the amount did not constitute an expenditure falling within Section 10(2)(xii). The Madras High Court in Senthikumara Nadar & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1957) 32 ITR 138] held that payments of penalty for an infraction of the law fell outside the scope of permissible deductions under s. 10(2)(xv). In that case the assessee had to pay liquidated damages which was akin to penalty incurred for an act opposed to public policy a policy underlying the Coffee Market Expansion Act, 1942, and which was left to…

M/S. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1790/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…relating to total sales of the year. The decisions of various courts make it clear that an ad hoc basis for deciding the amount of warranty expenditure cannot be allowed. Reliance is placed on the following case. In Senthilkumara Nadar & Sons vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 138 (Mad) this Court held that, "It should be taken as well settled now that without statutory warrant - and there is none in s. 10(2) (xv) - deductions are not permissible for anticipated losses, even if they are inevitable nor for contingent liabilities." 6. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made earlier with respect to assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Keihin Panalfa Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…relating to total sales of the year. The decisions of various courts make it clear that an ad hoc basis for deciding the amount of warranty expenditure cannot be allowed. Reliance is placed on the following case. In Senthilkumara Nadar & Sons vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 138 (Mad) this Court held that, "It should be taken as well settled now that without statutory warrant - and there is none in s. 10(2) (xv) - deductions are not permissible for anticipated losses, even if they are inevitable nor for contingent liabilities." 6. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made earlier with respect to assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2573/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2573/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Circle-28(1), A-12, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpg6016D Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. P. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. P. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(3)

…ome for the year under consideration debited a sum of Rs.2,60,53,488/- under the head rent which according to AO was contingent in nature. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Indian Molases Pvt. Ltd. 37 ITR 66 (SC) " Ms. P. Santikumar Vs CIT 32 ITR 138 3 Jagdish Prasad Gupta 5. The AO asked the assessee to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.2,60,53,488/- be not added back to his income. The assessee filed the reply vide letter dated 28.03.2013. However, the AO did not find merit in the said reply of the assessee and held that the assessee willfully debited in the profit and loss account an…

New Holland Tractors (India) Private Limited

ITA/182/2002HC Delhi25 Sept 2014
Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos. 182/2002 & 255/2003 Page 1 of 26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 182/2002 & 255/2003 Reserved on : 5th September, 2014 Date of decision: 25th September, 2014 NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-V ..... Respondent Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HO…