TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - - - Dated:- 1-2-1971 - Judge(s) : D. K. MAHAJAN., GOPAL SINGH. JUDGMENT At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred for our opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's profits and gains earned in the calendar year 1957 were assessable to tax for the assessment year 1958-59 at the rates prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is based on two decisions of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax . Before we deal with these decisions, it will be proper to mention the brief facts and the contention advanced. For the year 1958-59, the income-tax authorities refus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that is how the second question was referred for our opinion. The Tribunal proceeded to decide against the assessee on the basis of the decision of the Patna High Court reported as Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We may also add that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mannalal Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax takes the same view. Reverting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence or for carrying on of a business ; it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. That was a case where a loan had been incurred by the assessee to carry on its business from the financial corporation. The loan was held to have been incurred incidentally for carrying on the business. So far as the present case is concerned, none of the requirements of the pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for the purpose of its business. It was in that connection that it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 35,800. This amount was claimed by the appellant-company as permissible deduction and this was so held by the Supreme Court. This decision again has no parallel with the case with which we are dealing and the same reasoning applies to it as we have used while dealing with the case of India Cements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
