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>Wealth tax not deductible as business expense under Indian Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Travancore Titanium Product Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala</h3> Travancore Titanium Product Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala - [1966] 60 ITR 277, 1966 AIR 1250, 1966 SCR (3) 321 Issues:1. Deductibility of wealth-tax paid by a company under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.Analysis:The judgment dealt with the deductibility of wealth-tax paid by a company under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The appellant-company claimed that the wealth-tax paid was expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, making it a permissible allowance under the Act. However, the court examined the true character of the liability for payment of tax under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that the tax is charged on the net wealth of individuals and companies, not on the business activity itself. The tax is imposed on the owner of assets, irrespective of their use in business activities. The court clarified that the tax paid on the net wealth of an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act does not qualify as a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the assessment to income-tax. The judgment highlighted that for an expenditure to be deductible under section 10(2)(xv), it must be directly and intimately connected with the business and laid out by the taxpayer in their capacity as a trader. The court concluded that the wealth-tax paid did not meet the criteria for a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.The court emphasized that the nature of the expenditure must be adjudged in line with accepted commercial practice and trading principles. The expenditure should be incidental to the business, necessitated by commercial expediency, and directly connected with the business. The judgment cited previous cases to illustrate that every item of expenditure connected with the trade may not necessarily qualify as a permissible deduction. The court referred to various tests applied in determining the deductibility of expenditures under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business. The judgment outlined that the purpose of the expenditure should be for the carrying on of the business, and the taxpayer should incur it in their capacity as a person engaged in business activities.In analyzing the claim for deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, the court examined the meaning of the expression 'for the purpose of such business.' The appellant argued that tax paid on assets used for earning profits should be considered expenditure for the purpose of the business. The court, however, clarified that the tax under the Wealth-tax Act is charged on the net wealth of the owner, not on the business activity itself. The judgment highlighted that the tax liability remains the same whether the assets are utilized in the trading Organization or merely owned by the taxpayer. The court reiterated that the charge of tax under the Wealth-tax Act is based on asset ownership, not commercial activity, rendering the wealth-tax paid non-deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found