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>Appeal Dismissed: Accounting for Future Liabilities Must Comply with Legal Requirements</h1> <h3>Southern Railway of Peru Ltd. Versus Owen (Inspector of Taxes)</h3> The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant's method of accounting for future liabilities was impermissible. They held that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Computation of profits for income tax purposes.2. Deductibility of future liabilities.3. Applicability of Peruvian social legislation.4. Contingency of liabilities.5. Correct accountancy practice.6. Legal principles governing contingent liabilities.Detailed Analysis:1. Computation of Profits for Income Tax Purposes:The central issue was whether the appellant company, Southern Railway of Peru Ltd., could deduct future liabilities for employee retirement payments from its annual profits for income tax purposes. The appellant argued that these payments, which were mandated by Peruvian social legislation, should be accounted for annually as they accrued, rather than only when they were paid out at the end of an employee's service.2. Deductibility of Future Liabilities:The appellant contended that the amounts to be deducted should be the proportionate amount of each payment estimated as ultimately to be paid on retirement, on the basis of that proportionate amount having accrued at the end of each period of account. This method, they argued, was necessary to reflect the true cost of the services rendered by employees each year. The Crown, however, argued that the liability was contingent and should only be deducted in the year it was actually paid.3. Applicability of Peruvian Social Legislation:The Peruvian legislation required the company to make lump sum payments to employees upon termination of their service. These payments were considered deferred remuneration. The appellant argued that since employees could claim their compensation at any time by giving notice, the company was entitled to charge the estimated future payments against the profits of the current year. The Crown countered that no liability existed until the actual termination of employment, making any such deduction premature.4. Contingency of Liabilities:The Crown's primary argument was that the company's liability to pay these lump sums was contingent upon the termination of employment, and thus could not be deducted until the contingency was resolved. The appellant argued that the probability of having to make these payments was so high that it should be considered a current liability.5. Correct Accountancy Practice:The Special Commissioners found that it was a matter of correct accountancy practice in England to make provision in the accounts for such sums. They held that the sums in question were deferred remuneration and that there was nothing in the Income Tax Act, 1918, to prohibit their deduction in computing the company's profits. The Crown disputed this, arguing that the sums were too speculative to be included as current liabilities.6. Legal Principles Governing Contingent Liabilities:The House of Lords examined whether there was an overriding principle of law that contingent liabilities must be disregarded. The appellant cited precedents like Sun Insurance Office v. Clark, where future liabilities were allowed to be deducted to reflect true profits. The Crown argued that the principle did not apply as the company's liability was not definite within the relevant year.Judgment:The House of Lords ultimately dismissed the appeal. They agreed with the Court of Appeal that the appellant's method of accounting for these future liabilities was not permissible. They held that the liability to pay the lump sums was contingent upon the termination of employment and could not be deducted until it was actually paid. The Lords emphasized that while it might be correct accountancy practice to make such provisions, it did not align with the legal requirements for income tax purposes. The judgment reinforced that contingent liabilities, unless they can be fairly estimated and are practically certain, cannot be deducted from annual profits for tax purposes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found