Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Judgment Search Results Home > Search Phrase: income tax act 1961 section 35d Page 1 of about 140,599 results (0.376 seconds)

Nov 04 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Synthetics Limited

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : [1986]162ITR819(MP)

..... the appellate assistant commissioner, it was contended that all the above items of expenses were clearly covered by sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961, and hence the income-tax officer was not justified in disallowing the same. it was contended that the said sub-clause (iv) covered the expenses which are incurred in connection with the ..... case, the tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of rs. 6,03,410 out of the expenditure of rs. 14,35,224 claimed by the assessee under section 35d(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ? (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of relief under ..... for the parties submitted that in view of the decision of the supreme court relating to section 80j of the income-tax act, 1961, in lohia machines ltd. v. union of india : [1985]152itr308(sc) this question had to be decided in favour of the department and against the assessee. accordingly, this ..... section 80j of the income-tax act, 1961, borrowed capital should also be taken into account in order to arrive at the capital employed in the industrial undertaking ? ' 2. so far question no. (3) is concerned, learned counsel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1996 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1997)141CTR(Ker)97; [1997]224ITR126(Ker)

..... the business of the predecessor foreign company. he took the view that it is not a revenue expenditure and that it is an expenditure coming within the ambit of section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961, and allowed deduction of only 10 per cent. of the said expenses. likewise, the assessing authority also disallowed one-third of the expenditure and depreciation on the ..... appellate tribunal will consider the said judgment while deciding the matter.20. since, according to us, the income-tax appellate tribunal in arriving at the conclusion that the expenses in question are of capital nature and that the provisions of section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961, are applicable to the instant case, has not considered the issue with reference tothe principles laid down by ..... do not see any reason to interfere with that.9. regarding the question of disallowance of 1/3rd of the expenditure and depreciation on the cars under section 40a(5) of the income-tax act, 1961, the appellate tribunal noted the fact that these cars had been used by the employees for their personal use also and observed that the same issue had ..... the supreme court in the aforementioned cases and also the order passed by this court in the company application and the scheme approved thereunder, we are of the view that the income-tax appellate tribunal must .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1990 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Multi Metals Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1990)88CTR(Raj)1; [1991]188ITR151(Raj)

..... was right in holding that the fees paid to the registrar of companies for raising the authorised capital of the assessee-company wascovered by sub-clause (2)(c)(iv) of section 35d of the income-tax act,1961 ?' the assessee is a limited company which paid rs. 60,000 as fee for registration to the registrar of companies as required under the companies ..... k.c. agrawal, c.j.1. the following two questions have been referred by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 256 of the income-tax act, 1961, for the opinion of the high court at the instance of the commissioner of income-tax, jaipur :' 1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the fees paid to the registrar ..... case be returned to the income-tax appellate tribunal with the answers mentioned above. since we have answered one question in favour of the revenue and the other ..... , we have to hold that under sub-section (2)(c)(iv) of section 35d, the expenditure incurred for obtaining registration would be liable to be deductible.11. we, consequently, hold that the fee paid to the registrar of companies for raising authorised capital of the assessee-company was covered by sub-section (2)(c)(iv) of section 35d of the income-tax act,12. let the papers of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2000 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [2001]250ITR84(Bom)

..... the stamp duty paid on debenture issue was an allowable item of deduction under section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961. section 35d deals with amortisation of certain preliminary expenses. under section 35d(1) where an assessee, being an indian company, incurs, after march 31, 1970, expenditure specified in sub-section (2) of section 35d before the commencement of his business, or after the commencement of his business, ..... on account of stamp duty even after introduction of section 35d. under the circumstances, the tribunal was right in allowing the said deduction.3. the second question which arises for consideration ..... stamp duty payable by the assessee on the debenture issue. section 35d would apply only in respect of expenditure which is otherwise not allowable under the law, for example, capital expenditure. therefore, in this case, the judgment of the supreme court in the case of india cements ltd. v. citcitcit : [1966]60itr52(sc) , applies in respect of expenditure ..... company and it incurs expenditure in connection with the issue, for public subscription of debentures of the company, such expenditure shall be an item of deduction contemplated by section 35d(1). it is contended on behalf of the department that payment of stamp duty on the debenture issue is not an item of allowable deduction. the tribunal has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2000 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2001)169CTR(Bom)191; [2001]250ITR696(Bom)

..... duty paid on debenture issue continues to be an item of deduction under section 37 of the income-tax act, even after the enactment of section 35d of the income-tax act ?'5. mr. desai, learned senior counsel for the department, contended that in this case, the judgment of the supreme court in india ..... the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the stamp duty paid on debenture issue amounting to rs. 9,40,808 is an allowable deduction under section 35d of the income-tax act ?'4. question no. (ii), quoted above, has not been framed properly. it needs to be refrained. the refrained question is as follows :'whether the stamp ..... cements ltd. v. citcitcit : [1966]60itr52(sc) , has no application after the introduction of section 35d of the income-tax act. he contended that the tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that section 35d ..... would only apply in respect of the expenditure which is otherwise not allowable under the act. he contended that the tribunal erred in coming .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2008 (HC)

Dy. C.i.T. Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Guj)580; [2009]308ITR263(Guj)

..... in appeal before tribunal and succeeded. the tribunal has held that allowability or otherwise of the expenditure had to be tested as per the requirements of provisions of section 37(1) of the income tax act,1961 ('the act'), that the expenditure in question was not of personal nature and the only test which was then required to be applied was whether the expenditure was capital ..... 21itr353(all) (b) delhi cloth and general mills co. ltd. v. c.i.t. : [1992]198itr500(delhi) (c) citcitcit v. sakthi soyas ltd. (2006) 283 itr 1948. in relation to the second question relating to allowability of deduction under section 35d of the act, the assessing officer disallowed the same holding that the expenditure in question was in capital field and could not ..... ) has been confirmed by the tribunal.9. on behalf of the appellant-revenue it was submitted that for the purposes of computing the figure as stipulated by sub-section (3) of section 35d of the act, 'capital employed in the business of the company' had to be worked out and the said definition read with definition of 'long-term borrowings' indicated that any ..... expressed by the assessing officer and came to the conclusion that the definition of 'capital employed' and the phrase 'long-term borrowings' as appearing in explanation to sub-section (3) of section 35d of the act did not make any distinction between 'short term borrowing' and 'long term borrowings' as no period was prescribed. therefore, the bridge loan availed of by the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2003 (HC)

Autolite India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (2004)186CTR(Raj)548; [2003]264ITR117(Raj)

..... lakhs head lamps per annum to 12 lakhs head lamps per annum as expansion and not extension as envisaged in section 250 (sic) of the income-tax act, 1961, and consequently holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 35d in respect of expenses as public issue.' 2. the relevant assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89. ..... 1. on an application under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'in the interest of the circumstances of the case, was the ..... ' and 'expansion' and the bombay high court has read 'extension' as 'expansion' in the case of citcitcit v. mahindra ugine and steel co. ltd. : [2001]250itr84(bom) and allowed the benefit under section 35d of the act. the case before the bombay high court for the expenditure incurred on payment of stamp duty for debenture issue, whether ..... to above and if any amount out of that amount is incurred on the aforesaid items given in sub-clause (iv), he should allow the benefit of section 35d of the act to the assessee. 10. in the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. ..... issue has been incurred on 'expansion' of business and not on 'extension' of business. therefore, the assessee is not entitled even for the benefit under section 35d of the act. 5. heard learned counsel for the parties. there is no dispute that the assessee has incurred rs. 6,30,177 on the public issue to raise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2005 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2007]290ITR196(Delhi)

..... , however, came to the conclusion that the expenditure would qualify only for amortisation under section 35d of the act. he further held that the decision of the supreme court in india cements ltd. v. citcitcit : [1966]60itr52(sc) stood nullified by the introduction of section 35d. in appeal, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) affirmed the view taken by the assessing officer and held that the expenditure ..... could not be allowed as a revenue expenditure because of the introduction of section 35d with effect ..... cements ltd.'s case : [1966]60itr52(sc) and that section 35d did not have the effect of bringing that expenditure within the scope of the expenditure to be amortised against profits over a period of ten years. the tribunal also held that the circulars issued by the court were binding on the income-tax authorities, in view of the decision of the supreme court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1995 (HC)

Saraf Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : [1996]217ITR507(Raj)

..... arising out of the order of the tribunal dated march 20, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 :'1. whether the tribunal was right in law in treating interest as income and as income from other sources ? 2. whether the tribunal was right in law in not reducing interest in capital expenditure ? 3. whether the ..... pre-operative expenses and since the construction having not been completed, they have to be carried forward to be capitalised or allocated to the various assets, even the claim under section 35d can be allowed only from the year in which the business commences. in the year, the business has not commenced and, therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be ..... the said amount cannot be allowed to be reduced from computing expenditure. the expenditure which were claimed by the assessee were considered by the tribunal as covered by section 35d and, therefore, the income of interest could not be adjusted from the expenses for which specific provision has been made. the matter stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case ..... of citcitcit v. rajasthan land development corporation and citcitcit v. manglam cement ltd. (d. b. income-tax reference no. 58 of 1986 decided on march 22, 1995). under section 57 certain expenditure has been allowed and when specific provision has been made under section 35d, expenses cannot be claimed under any other section.4. we are, therefore, of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2001 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2002]256ITR488(Mad)

..... not extended any industrial undertaking or set up any new industrial unit, and even though it had commenced its business long prior to march 31, 1970, claimed benefit under section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961, and sought to claim the expenditure it had incurred in connection with the increase in its paid up capital from rs. 25 lakhs to rs. 60.70 lakhs. the ..... revenue expenditure. subsequently, the supreme court, in the case of brooke bond india ltd. v. citcitcit : [1997]225itr798(sc) , held that such expenditure is not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure.4. the assessee here clearly was not entitled to the benefit of section 35d as that section itself was inapplicable having regard to the increase in the share capital being subsequent to the ..... it was, and rightly, found that the assessee could not take shelter under any part of section 35d, extending the benefit under that section was a question which simply did not arise. the tribunal had also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of citcitcit v. kisenchand chellaram (india) pvt. ltd, : [1981]130itr385(mad) wherein it was held that the ..... at rs. 11,22,289. it sought to spread the same over a period of ten years and also sought to write off 1/10th of that sum and invoked section 35d for the relevant previous year. such a claim was negatived by the assessing officer, as also by the appellate authority but was allowed by the tribunal.3. the tribunal has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //