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

xv) of the Income-tax Act, but not under s. 10 (2) (xii) of the Act. The second question was answered in the negative. Against the answer recorded on the first question the Commissioner of Income- tax has appealed, and against the answer recorded on the second question the assessee has appealed. The assessee which was originally floated

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

section 10(2)(xv) only if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business, but even if it fulfills this requirement, it is nob enough; it must further be of revenue as distinguished from capital nature http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16 2. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills’ case was a converse case

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs

10(20) of the 1961 Act. 19. Learned counsel next contended that in the hierarchy, mentioned in 1998 Act, the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, as defined under Section 5, is in complete control of the finances of AMC(s) and, therefore, according to learned 12 counsel, the clarification, issued by CBDT, expressly states that Agricultural Marketing Societies and Agricultural Marketing

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

PINGLE INDUSTRIES LTD., SECUNDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal fails, and will be dismissed with

section reads as follows: " 12 (1). The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head profits and gains of business, profession or vocation in respect of the profits and gains of any business, profession or vocation carried or by him. (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely:- ...................................................... (XV) Any expenditure

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

transfer of shares. This finding would clearly be in the teeth of Section 260-A (4), requiring the judgment to be set aside on this score. 15. Coming to the merits, the High Court found: “22. …No doubt, market price of each share was only Rs.3/- per share and the purchase price under the MOU was Rs.30/-, but the total

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. K. T. M. T. M. ABDUL KAYOOM

In the result, the appeal is allowed; but

XV) of the Income-tax Act. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, and on appeal, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent contended that the ruling of the Privy Council in Mohanlal Hargovind’s case (2) applied to the case, inasmuch as the payment was to secure the stock