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>High Court allows financial corp to deduct interest as business expenditure under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Gujarat State Finance Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Gujarat State Finance Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1992] 195 ITR 518, 103 CTR 57 Issues Involved:1. Deduction of interest amount as allowable business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Legal obligation to pay interest on the provident fund utilized by the Corporation for its own business.3. Commercial expediency of crediting interest to the provident fund account.4. Applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. The timing of liability accrual and quantification of interest.Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Interest Amount as Allowable Business Expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee, a financial corporation, claimed a deduction of Rs. 53,119 as business expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer allowed only Rs. 5,311, attributing it to the accounting year ending March 31, 1972, while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the entire amount. The Tribunal, however, reversed this decision, stating there was no legal liability to pay interest for the amount utilized by the Corporation for its business. The High Court held that the deduction was justified on the grounds of commercial expediency, emphasizing that preventing employee discontent was a legitimate business purpose.2. Legal Obligation to Pay Interest on the Provident Fund Utilized by the Corporation for Its Own Business:The Corporation had a policy to invest provident fund money in fixed deposits with nationalized banks. However, Rs. 1,02,471 was utilized for the Corporation's business without maintaining separate accounts. The audit note suggested crediting interest at 7.25% for this amount. The High Court noted that the Corporation was required to credit interest to the fund, not just under regulation 11, but also to rectify the improper use of the fund for business purposes.3. Commercial Expediency of Crediting Interest to the Provident Fund Account:The High Court emphasized that the Corporation's decision to credit interest was driven by commercial expediency to maintain employee goodwill and prevent discontent. The court stated that commercial expediency does not require waiting for actual agitation from employees but can be based on foresight to prevent potential issues.4. Applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The High Court considered that the amount of the provident fund utilized by the Corporation could be deemed as borrowed capital for business purposes. Under Section 36(1)(iii), interest on such borrowed capital is deductible. The court held that the interest paid on the amount used by the Corporation was compensatory and aligned with legal propriety, thus qualifying for deduction.5. Timing of Liability Accrual and Quantification of Interest:The High Court clarified that the liability to pay interest was not ascertained until the board's decision during the accounting year ending March 31, 1972. The liability was quantified based on the audit note, and thus, the deduction was appropriate for the assessment year 1972-73. The court rejected the notion that the interest was an ex gratia payment and affirmed its deductibility.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the assessee-Corporation was entitled to the deduction of the entire amount of Rs. 53,119 for the assessment year 1972-73. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the remaining claim of Rs. 47,808 was reversed, and the question was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found