THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

gains of business or profession”. It is not the case of assessee that the expenditure incurred by them is covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and even if that was so the question of allowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act would not arise. 18. In our opinion, the expenditure towards the religious funds

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S JAY MINERALS

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M. ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.M ABDUL ZAHID

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

b) Section 37 is in the nature of a residuary provision extending the allowance to items of business expenditure that are not covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the 1961 Act; the word ‘expenditure’ primarily denotes the idea of ‘spending’ or ‘paying out or away’; it is something which is gone irretrievably vide Indian Molasses