Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1990 1990 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 288 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred On Travelling By Employee, Limits On Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... is case, it must be held that the expression including hotel expenses or allowances paid in connection with travelling must mean only the allowances paid for the stay in hotel. The restriction thus confines itself only to the expenses on stay and does not cover other expenses incurred provided they are not personal and are exclusively for the purpose of the business. It is not necessary for us to illustrate the types of expenditure but suffice it to say that rule 6D read with section 37(3) seeks to limit the expenditure incurred on travelling to the extent of stay in hotels confining it to daily allowances referred to in rule 6D and do not extend to any other expenditure incurred provided the expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Partners, Share From Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 6 105 ITR 295, where the Madras High Court has also taken the view that in order to justify a claim for deduction under section 67(3), there must be some share income from that firm and that when a deduction under the provision of section 67(3) is negatived, the assessee cannot fall back upon section 36(1)(iii). For the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to deduction on account of the interest paid by him on the capital borrowed for the purpose of investment in the firm in which he was a partner inasmuch as he had no share income from the firm where such investment was made. He is also not entitled to get the benefit under section 36(1)(iii) as no capital was borrowed for the purpose of carrying on any business by him in his individual capacity. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Return filed beyond time - Tribunal was justified in holding that, by the levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer must be deemed to have granted time up to the date of filing the return of income - penalty u/s 271(1)(a) not leviable.
-
1990 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee, a company resident in British India had a cotton mill in British India - cloth manufactured by the mill was sold in British India as well as in the native States - In respect of remittance received from native States whether the assessee could claim deduction of profits deemed to arise in British India, and only the balance could be taxed under s. 14(2)(c)
-
1990 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Income being in respect of letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities - Whether the assessee was an "authority" within the meaning of section 10(29) constituted under law for marketing of commodities - assessee having fulfilled all the tests was rightly entitled to the exemption as claimed u/s 10(29)
-
1990 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Circular No. 189 dated January 30, 1976 - Reserve for purposes of development rebate - Whether, the assessee can be said to have complied with the provisions of proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was, therefore, entitled to allowance of development rebate on the plant and machinery installed after January 1, 1958
-
1990 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Mining Lease - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Northern Railway was a revenue expenditure and was a deduction allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, in our opinion, failed to appreciate the true nature of the expenditure - High Court committed an error in interfering with the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
-
1990 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Bad Debt - Deemed Profit - contention of the assessee was that he was not assessable under section 41(4) of the 1961 Act because these amounts had been written off as bad debts in the year 1959-60 and his claim for deduction, though initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, was subsequently allowed - contentions of the assessee fail and the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed
....
|
|