Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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 on capital computation for Section 80J, upholds assessee's deductibility on event and tour expenses.</h1> <h3>Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1994] 208 ITR 785, 118 CTR 109, 73 TAXMANN 43 Issues Involved:1. Computation of capital employed for the purpose of Section 80J.2. Deduction of entertainment expenditure.3. Inclusion of borrowed money in capital employed for Section 80J.4. Computation of average capital for Section 80J.5. Allowability of foreign tour expenses.Detailed Analysis:1. Computation of Capital Employed for Section 80J:The questions referred by the assessee pertain to whether debts owed should be deducted and whether the written down value of assets should be taken instead of the original cost when computing the capital employed for a new industrial undertaking under Section 80J. The Supreme Court's decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, which upheld the validity of Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was cited. Consequently, these questions were answered in favor of the Revenue, indicating that both the debts owed and the written down value of assets should be considered as per Rule 19A.2. Deduction of Entertainment Expenditure:The Tribunal found that the expenditure of Rs. 3,44,316 incurred during the inaugural function of the assessee's fertilizer plant was wholly and exclusively for business purposes and not in the nature of entertainment expenditure. The Revenue argued that the expression 'in the nature of entertainment' in Section 37(2B) of the Act includes any expenditure with an element of hospitality, supported by various High Court decisions. However, the assessee contended, supported by Delhi High Court and Calcutta High Court decisions, that the expenditure was not entertainment expenditure.The court noted that Section 37(2B) disallows entertainment expenditure incurred in India after February 28, 1970. The court agreed with the Gujarat High Court's view in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 424, which distinguished between hospitality and entertainment, concluding that not all hospitality constitutes entertainment. The court held that the expenditure was necessary for the function's success and was not lavish or wasteful. Thus, the Tribunal's decision to allow the expenditure as revenue expenditure was upheld, except for a minor portion related to alcoholic drinks and a dance show, which was deemed entertainment but too minor to overturn the Tribunal's decision.3. Inclusion of Borrowed Money in Capital Employed for Section 80J:The Tribunal's decision to include borrowed money as part of the capital employed for computing deductions under Section 80J was challenged by the Revenue. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Lohia Machines Ltd., which validated Rule 19A, the court answered this question in favor of the Revenue, indicating that borrowed money should not be included.4. Computation of Average Capital for Section 80J:The Tribunal directed that the average capital for Section 80J should be computed based on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 123 (Cal). However, in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lohia Machines Ltd., the court answered this question in favor of the Revenue, implying that the computation should follow Rule 19A.5. Allowability of Foreign Tour Expenses:The Tribunal held that the expenditure of Rs. 92,777 incurred on the foreign tour of Dr. Bharat Ram was allowable. The Revenue conceded that, based on the Delhi High Court's decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 64, such expenses for attending a business conference by an employee are deductible as business expenditure. Thus, this question was answered in favor of the assessee.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decisions favoring the assessee on the deductibility of the inaugural function expenditure and foreign tour expenses. However, it ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the computation of capital employed for Section 80J, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Lohia Machines Ltd.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found