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.
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>Court rules loss relevant to 1946-47 assessment year, not 1945-46. Section 10(2A) inapplicable. Assessee awarded costs.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Mathulal Baldeo Prasad</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Mathulal Baldeo Prasad - [1961] 42 ITR 517 Issues Involved:1. Determination of the assessment year to which the loss of Rs. 14,994 pertains.2. Interpretation of the mercantile system of accounting in relation to contingent and ascertained liabilities.3. Applicability of section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the Assessment Year:The primary issue was whether the loss amounting to Rs. 14,994 should be considered for the assessment year 1945-46 or 1946-47. The assessee argued that the liability arose when the arbitrator's award was given in August 1944, thus making it relevant to the assessment year 1946-47. The Tribunal, however, held that the loss was incurred in the assessment year 1945-46, as the speculative transactions in cotton were settled in January, March, and May 1944.2. Interpretation of the Mercantile System of Accounting:The court examined whether the liability was contingent or ascertained. The assessee contended that the liability was contingent until the arbitrator's award was given, making it an ascertained liability only in the assessment year 1946-47. Several cases were cited to support this contention:- Kanpur Tannery Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 I.T.R. 863: The court held that a liability could only be entered in the books as an expenditure when it had become an ascertained sum of money.- Ford & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1926] 12 Tax Cas. 997: The court ruled that a liability which was contested and not admitted by the assessee was a contingent liability, not an ascertained one.- James Spencer & Co. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1950] 32 Tax Cas. 111: It was held that a liability becomes actual when it is admitted or determined by a competent court.- Rajarathina Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 29 I.T.R. 834: The court indicated that a mere ascertained liability with a corresponding entry in the accounts was sufficient for claiming revenue expenditure.The court concluded that, given the speculative nature of the transactions and the arbitration agreement, the liability was not enforceable until determined by the arbitrators. Thus, the loss amounting to Rs. 14,994 was relevant to the assessment year 1946-47.3. Applicability of Section 10(2A):The Department cited section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which deals with the inclusion of amounts received in respect of previously allowed deductions. However, the court noted that this provision was introduced by the Indian Finance Act 1955 and was not applicable to the assessments for the years 1945-46 and 1946-47. The court emphasized that the liability should be deducted when incurred, but in this case, the liability was determined only after the arbitration award, making it relevant to the assessment year 1946-47.Conclusion:The court answered the reference by concluding that the loss amounting to Rs. 14,994 was a loss pertaining to the assessment year 1946-47. The assessee was awarded costs assessed at Rs. 200, and the fee for the Department's counsel was fixed at the same amount. The judgment was pronounced under Chapter VII, rule 1(2), of the rules of Court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found