COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-IICALCUTTA vs. KALYANJI MAVJI & COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed with costs

section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The deduction was disallowed by the Income Tax officer on the ground

A. vs. . THOMAS & CO., LTD., ALLEPPEY VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(BANGALORE) KERALA

In the result the appeal must fail and it is dismissed

section 10(2) (xi) or 10(2) (xv) ?" The High Court certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court and this appeal has been filed by the assessee company. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Bangalore) Kerala, is the respondent. The assessee company was incorporated in 1935 and, as is usual with companies, its Memorandum of Association, authorised

ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,WEST BENGAL

disallowed as being expenditure of a capital nature and so not allowable under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA, ERNAKULAM vs. TRAVANCORE SUGAR & CHEMICALS LTD

section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The claim was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. CIBA OF INDIA LTD

disallowed the claim (except as to 2% paid as royalty on trade marks used by the assessee). The order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to the Swiss Company were allowable under s. 10 (2) (xii) and in any event under s. 10 (2

DHARAMVIR DHIR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BIHAR & ORISSA

section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act?" The facts of the appeals are these: The appellant was an employee of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. and for each of the accounting years relating to the assessment years 1947- 48 and 1948-49 his salary was Rs. 10,572. He also had an income of Rs. 500 from

EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 10(2)(xv). The sole question which therefore arises for determination in the appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 2,03,255/- paid by the assessee represented capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. We shall have to examine this question on principle but before we do so, we must refer to the decision of this Court in Maheshwari Devi

GORDON WOODROFFEE LEATHER MANUFACTURING CO. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, on the ground that the appellant company had no pension scheme; the payment was voluntary and that the entry in the assessee’s books clearly indicated it to be a capital payment. ^ Held, that the payment does not fall within the provisions of s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The amount was paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BOMBAY vs. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. BOMBAY

In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed

xv) is plain and unambiguous. To find out whether a deduction claimed is permissible under the Act or not, all that the Court has to do is to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. Equitable considerations are wholly out of the place in con- struing the provisions of the taxing statute. If the allowance claimed is permissible under

M/S. W. T. SUREN & CO. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. BOMBAY

10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the computation of taxable profits (omitting parts of the clause not material) "any expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation", i.e., business, profession or vocation carried on by the assessee, is a permissible allowance. But to be a permissible allowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

disallowed by Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the IT Act. Under Section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation

ASSOCIATED BANKING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY-1

xv) of the Income- tax Act ? The High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the claim for allowance of bad debts could not be sustained under s. 10(2) (xi) as the debts had not been written off in the books of account of the Bank. But at the request of counsel for the liquidator they called upon the Tribunal

KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CALCUTTA

disallowed appellant’s claim for deduction of sales tax on the ground that the liability, to pay sales tax had not been accented by the appellant and no provision had been made in its books with regard to payment of the assessed amount. The authorities Linder the Act dismissed the appeals. The High Court in reference was of the opinion

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL - I, CALCUTTA. vs. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

In the result, we hold that the High Court is right in

xv) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act. [632 H - 633 A] 2.(b) Pursuant to the resolution by the Board of Directors on December 21, 1957 the rules were revised and amended. As a result, payments made earlier over which, under the original rules, the assessee had maintained its control, now passed from that control

SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

disallowing the claim. Under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended by Act 7 of 1939 expenditure even though not directly related to the earning of income may still be admissible as a deduction. Expenditure on civil litigation commenced or carried on by an assessee for protecting the business is admissible as expenditure under

BADRIDAS DAGA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we are of opinion that the loss sustained by

Section 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be made in ascertaining profits taxable under s. 10(1). In Incometax commissioner v. chitnavis (1), the point for decision was whether a bad debt could be deducted under s. 10

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

xv) Insofar as the words used ‘total income’ in section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is submitted that before insertion of the new scheme of assessment under Section 153A, there was a concept of block assessment in respect of the search period. There was one assessment for the block period in respect of the undisclosed income found during

PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)

In the result, we allow that appeal partly and remit the

disallowed even though the said expenditure was less than the expenditure allowable under Section 37(2) of the I.T. Act? 4. Whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to hold that the expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,500 at Diners Club and C.C.I. was not laid wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business