Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Allahabad unit not integral to single business. Closure compensation deductible for business purpose.</h1> <h3>Jayshree Tea And Industries Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax.</h3> The Tribunal found that the Allahabad unit did not constitute a part of a single business carried out by the assessee due to the lack of established ... Single business – various units of the assessee - business expenditure - Assessee in its business wisdom attempted to avoid incurring loss by reducing the workforce of one of the units running at a loss for earning profit from the other units, which the assessee deemed fit for the purpose of carrying on the business. Therefore, the said payment was an allowable deduction - on the basis of the finding arrived at by Tribunal itself about the unity of control and management, the Tribunal could not have denied deducibility of the amount even though it might have been made voluntarily or ex gratia when made for reducing out some of the workforce to get rid of the incurring of loss and for earning profit, and for which under the law retrenchment compensation was payable, and was so paid as a prudent businessman Issues Involved:1. Whether the Allahabad unit constituted a part of a single business carried out by the assessee.2. Whether there was inter-connection, inter-lacing, and inter-dependence between the various units of the assessee.3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,40,250 by the Commissioner of Income-tax.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Allahabad unit constituted a part of a single business carried out by the assessee:The Tribunal held that the Allahabad unit did not constitute a part of a single business carried out by the assessee. The assessee failed to produce evidence of inter-connection and inter-lacing between the various units. The accounts were maintained separately, and the units were scattered across India, with the head office in Delhi and the registered office in Calcutta. The Tribunal concluded that the Allahabad unit was not part of a single business due to the lack of established inter-connection and inter-lacing.2. Whether there was inter-connection, inter-lacing, and inter-dependence between the various units of the assessee:The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient material to show inter-connection, inter-lacing, and inter-dependence between the Allahabad unit and other units. Despite the unity of control and management, the Tribunal required additional evidence of inter-connection and inter-lacing, which was not provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the various units did not constitute a single integrated business.3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 18,40,250 by the Commissioner of Income-tax:The court examined whether the expenditure for closure compensation was incurred for the purpose of business. The Tribunal's finding of unity of control and management led to the conclusion that the business was a single entity. The court held that the expenses incurred for closing a unit to prevent loss and ensure profitability of the remaining business were deductible. The denial of closure approval under the Industrial Disputes Act was immaterial for income-tax assessment. The court concluded that the expenditure was bona fide and for the purpose of business, thus allowable under section 37.Conclusion:The Tribunal's approach in requiring additional evidence for inter-connection and inter-lacing, despite finding unity of control and management, was erroneous. The court held that once the business is established as a single entity, inter-connection and inter-lacing are presumed. The expenditure for closure compensation was deemed deductible as it was incurred for the purpose of business. The reference was allowed, and the third question was answered in favor of the assessee.Order:The reference succeeds, and the third question is answered in favor of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found