Judgment Search Results Home Phrase:income tax act 1961 section 35d
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 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 : 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!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)169CTR(Bom)191; 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 : 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!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Kar)544; 310ITR215(KAR); 310ITR215(Karn); 177TAXMAN317(Kar); ILR2008(3)Kar3218; 2008(3)KCCRSN216; 2008(4)AIRKarR185(DB)
1. in this appeal, filed under section 260a of the income tax act, 1961 ('the it actit actit act' for short), the revenue has challenged the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2002 passed under section 234(2) of the it actit actit act by the income tax appellate tribunal ('the tribunal' for short) in misc. petition no. 92/bang/2001 reversing its earlier common order dated 25.9.2000 ..... sc) and (iii) : 225itr798(sc) , and also after discussing in detail the provisions of section 35d and section 37 (1) and (3) of the it actit actit act and rules 6d of the income tax rules, and examining to the findings of the assessing officer and those of citcitcit(a) in their respective orders as to the disallowance of the said expenditure, the tribunal ultimately held ..... the entire expenditure relating to the share issue expenses was required to be disallowed and therefore the assessing officer and citcitcit(a) rightly decided the issue by allowing 1/10th of the said expenditure under section 35d of the it actit actit act and by disallowing the remaining 9/10th of the same.11. further, on perusal of the impugned order dated 23 ..... : 225itr792(sc) and : 225itr798(sc) and again interpreted the provisions of section 35d and section 37 (1) and (3) of the it actit actit act and passed the impugned order reversing its findings in its earlier order upholding the order of the asst. commissioner and that of citcitcit(a) so far as they related to disallowance of the said expenditure. thus it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 261ITR681(KAR); 261ITR681(Karn)
..... other sources for the assessment year 1993-94. the public issue expenses of rs. 1,64,43,513 shall be amortised over a period of ten years as per section 35d of the income-tax act. for the assessment year 1994-95, as per note 15 of the notes to the accounts in schedule 14, the applicant had received interest of rs. 15 lakhs from ..... net surplus of rs. 54,00,546 was treated as capital reserve by the petitioner-company. the respondents initiated action against the petitioner under section 132 of the income-tax act. the petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 245c of the act before the first respondent. the petitioner offered rs. 54,00,546 being the excess of interest over expenses relatable to the excess share ..... revenue nature and not an accretion to capital. the supreme court in the very same judgment noticed as under (page 186) :'whether a particular receipt is of the nature of income and falls within the charge of section 4 of the income-tax act is a question of law which has to be decided by the court on the basis of the provisions of the ..... settlement commission can be interfered with only (headnote) :'(i) if grave procedural defects such as violation of the mandatory procedural requirements of the provisions in chapter xix-a of the income-tax act, 1961, and/or violation of the rules of natural justice are made out; or (ii) if it is found that there is no nexus between the reasons given and the decision .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 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 ..... the industrial undertaking ? ' 2. so far question no. (3) is concerned, learned counsel 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 : 152itr308(sc) this question had to be decided in favour of the department and against the assessee. accordingly, this ..... p.d. mulye, j. 1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, indore bench, indore, at the instance of the commissioner of income-tax, bhopal, has made this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following questions of law :' (1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(224)ELT365(SC); JT2008(3)SC508; 2008(4)SCALE27; (2008)4SCC548; (2008)15VST559(SC); 2008AIRSCW2376
..... is written off over the estimated useful life. on the other hand, amortisation generally is to write off the entire cost. the concept of amortisation is indicated in section 35d of the income- tax act, 1961. it refers to amortisation of preliminary expenses. these are, however, differences only in practice and not in the fundamental underlined concept, i.e., to apportion the cost ..... the income-tax act. electricity taxation stands on a different footing vis-`-vis corporate taxation. therefore, this court observed that accounting for costs differs according to the object and purpose for which the exercise is undertaken. therefore, when excise law seeks to tax the value, the concept therein cannot be bodily lifted and incorporated in section 3 of the u.p. trade tax act, ..... to the assessee. in case of sales-tax, tax is exigible on real price received or ..... is no such provision in section 3 of the 1948 act. therefore, one cannot borrow and automatically apply the concept of amortised cost to section 3 of the 1948 act.16. before analyzing section 3 of the 1948 act, it is important to keep in mind that in income-tax cases, tax is exigible on 'real income' which means the actual income received by or which accrues .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 127ITR239(Delhi)
..... to raise additional share capital for the company would be capital in nature. 4. shri beri invited our attention to s. 35d of the i.t. act, 1961. this section does not help the assessed. this section has no direct relevance for the present assessment year because it was introduced only with effect from april 1, 1971. but that ..... with an issue of preference shares by the company was of capital nature. referring to this decision the supreme court pointed out in india cements ltd. v. citcitcit : 60itr52(sc) , at page 61, that though the bombay high court was wrong in relying, for arriving at this conclusion upon the case of ..... s. ranganathan, j. 1. it is a very short question that arises in this reference under s. 256(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, at the instance of m/s. bharat carbon & ribbon ., new delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed'). during the previous year which ended on ..... . beri's further claim that the expenses in this case may also be spread over for ten years is obviously untenable as this section is inapplicable to the assessment year under consideration before us. 5. we, thereforee, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessed. ..... charges is spread over a period of ten years and is not allowable in the year in which the expenses are incurred. if at all, this section also only confirms the view that these are expenses of capital nature but the legislature has permitted their deduction but over a period of ten years. mr .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 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 : 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 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 ..... other provision in the income-tax law under which the expenditure is allowable as deduction against profits. the circular went on to state that the expenditure incurred on the issue of debentures was admissible as deduction by virtue of the decision of the supreme court in india cements ltd.'s case : 60itr52(sc) and that section 35d did not have the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2010)229CTR(Del)172; 187TAXMAN25(Delhi)
..... this appeal it is dismissed.7. learned counsel for the revenue submits that when the expenses were huge, such expenses need to have been amortized under the provisions of section 35d of the income-tax act, 1961. however, this is clearly a misconceived and erroneous argument inasmuch as it predicates on the premise that the expenditure in question is incurred before the commencement of the ..... business. when a finding of fact is recorded in the instant case that in the relevant assessment year business had already commenced, the provisions of section 35d would not get attracted at ..... first activity is also deductible in computing the profits and gains of the assessee for the relevant year when the activity is undertaken. in sarabhai management corporation ltd. v. citcitcit :  102 itr 25, the gujarat high court took the same view and held that the business commences with the first activity for acquiring by purchase or otherwise, immovable ..... have arisen. however it is well settled that for the purpose of allowance of any expenses under section 37(1) of the act as expenses it is not necessary that assessee should have earned income out of such activity. whatever has required to be seen is that whether the expenses are incurred for the purpose of business or not and such expenses .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1997)141CTR(Ker)97; 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 cars ..... 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 ..... well as the provision of section 17(2) of the said act observed as follows (at page ..... of section 40a(5) of the income-tax act. we find that a similar question has come up for consideration before this court in i. t. r. no. 28 of 1991--aspinwall and co. ltd. v. citcitcit (no. 1) : 220itr611(ker) . this court with reference to the special definition of perquisites contained in explanation 2(b) to section 40a(5) of the income-tax act, 1961, as .....Tag this Judgment!