Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1983 1983 (6) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 144 of 144 Records
-
1983 (6) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction, Estate Duty, Interest On Fixed Deposits, Reference, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... ing the business, that merely because the agreement had been entered into soon after the formation of the company, it cannot be stated that the payments under the agreement were liable to be treated as capital expenditure, that the nature of the expenditure is not dependent upon the time at which the relevant agreement came into existence and that the quality of the expenditure will have to be tested with reference to the object for which it was incurred. The court, ultimately, held that there was no element of capital expenditure involved in the payments made to the said two foreign companies. In view of the said decision, it has to be held that the entire technical aid fees and the royalty paid by the assessee to the two foreign companies should be held to be revenue or business expenditure and not capital expenditure as has been urged by the Revenue. Both the questions are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he ground that the assets jointly belong to the partners. If that be the case, it follows logically that the assessee will be entitled to claim the exemptions provided by the statute in respect of the assets which have been valued and included in his net wealth on proportionate basis. The exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) is in respect of a house or part of a house belonging to an assessee and of shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee , if it cannot be included indirectly. Merely because the house has been valued along with other assets of the partnership under r. 2, the exemption granted by s. 5(1)(iv) cannot be denied to the assessee. Moreover, the exemption can only be claimed by the individual partner who is an assessee in his assessment and not by the firm which is not an assessee in the course of valuation under r. 2. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour the assessee. Each party will bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1983 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... ecision of this court in CIT v. Rathnam Nadar 1969 71 ITR 433, has been approved by a Full Bench of this court in Addl. CIT v. Sheikh Mohideen 1978 115 ITR 243 (Mad) FB . Subsequently, the Supreme Court also in CIT v. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294 (SC), has approved the decision of this court in CIT v. Rathnam Nadar 1969 71 ITR 433, and has held that goodwill is a self-generating asset, that it does not cost anything in terms of money to an assessee and that, therefore, it cannot be included as part of capital gains. In view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal in this case is consistent with the view taken by this court in CIT v. Rathnam Nadar 1969 71 ITR 433, which has been approved by a Full Bench of this court in Addl. CIT v. Sheik Mohideen 1978 115 ITR 243 (Mad) FB and also by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294 (SC), we have to accept the said decision as correct. Hence, this petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Special Deduction
....
|
|