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

        Court Allows Deduction for Business Expenses; Revenue Expenditure Criteria Met

        Premier Automobiles Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay

        Premier Automobiles Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay - [1984] 150 ITR 28, 41 CTR 184, 16 TAXMANN 202 Issues involved:

        1. Deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs paid to Automobile Products of India Ltd. as revenue expenditure.
        2. Assessment year for deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs.
        3. Nature of Rs. 1 lakh out of Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid to Automobile Products of India Ltd.
        4. Deduction of pound 50,000 paid to Henry Meadows Ltd. as revenue expenditure.

        Summary:

        Issue 1: Deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs paid to Automobile Products of India Ltd. as revenue expenditure

        The court reframed the question to determine if the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs paid to Automobile Products of India Ltd. under the agreement dated April 29, 1961, as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal had earlier rejected this claim, treating the amount as capital expenditure for acquiring the right to manufacture Meadows engines. However, the court found that the payment was intended to remove an obstruction in the way of the assessee's business and did not bring into existence any enduring advantage. Therefore, the court held that the sum of Rs. 24 lakhs was deductible as revenue expenditure.

        Issue 2: Assessment year for deduction of Rs. 24 lakhs

        The court reframed the question to determine if the assessee is entitled to the deduction in the assessment year 1962-63 or in the relevant assessment years when the amounts were paid. Given the affirmative answer to Issue 1, the court found it unnecessary to answer this question separately, as the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in the assessment year 1962-63.

        Issue 3: Nature of Rs. 1 lakh out of Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid to Automobile Products of India Ltd.

        The learned counsel for the assessee stated that this question was not being pressed, and therefore, the court did not answer it.

        Issue 4: Deduction of pound 50,000 paid to Henry Meadows Ltd. as revenue expenditure

        The court examined whether the sum of pound 50,000 paid to Henry Meadows Ltd. under the agreement dated October 5, 1962, was capital expenditure. The Tribunal had disallowed the deduction, treating it as capital expenditure. However, the court found that the payment was for securing technical know-how and not for acquiring any tangible asset or enduring advantage. Referring to previous decisions, the court held that such payments for technical know-how are of a revenue nature. Consequently, the court answered the first part of the question in the affirmative, allowing the deduction as revenue expenditure. The second part of the question, regarding the write-off of one-tenth of the amount, was not pressed by the assessee and thus not answered.

        Conclusion:

        - Question No. 1: Answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
        - Question No. 2: Not necessary to be answered.
        - Question No. 3: Not answered as it was not pressed by the assessee.
        - Question No. 4: Answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee on the first part; the second part was not answered as it was not pressed.

        The assessee-company was awarded the costs of this reference.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found