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

        Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Business Expenditure and Tax Deductions

        Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal I Versus Associated Electrical Industries (India) Private Limited

        Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal I Versus Associated Electrical Industries (India) Private Limited - [1986] 157 ITR 72 (SC) Issues:
        - Interpretation of business expenditure incurred by the assessee
        - Allowability of deductions for contributions made towards pension and life assurance plan
        - Application of tax deduction at source provisions
        - Control over funds under the pension and life assurance plan

        Interpretation of business expenditure incurred by the assessee:
        The case involved a dispute regarding the deductibility of contributions made by the assessee towards a pension and life assurance plan for its employees. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deductions for the assessment year 1956-57, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed deductions only for contributions made to policies of employees who had received pensionary and retirement benefits. The subsequent assessments for earlier years were also reopened, leading to further disputes over deductions. The rules under the plan were amended in 1957, transferring control over the funds to the plan members. The issue revolved around whether the contributions made by the assessee constituted business expenditure and were allowable as deductions under the Income-tax Act.

        Allowability of deductions for contributions made towards pension and life assurance plan:
        For the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed deductions for all contributions made towards the policies. The Income-tax Officer allowed a portion of the contribution made in the relevant year following the rule amendment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal restricted the deductions to specific payments made by the society to employees. The assessee contended that the remaining balance should be considered as an allowable business expenditure due to the rule amendment. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the deductions were permissible under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act.

        Application of tax deduction at source provisions:
        The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the tax deduction at source provisions barred the deductions claimed by the assessee. However, it was established through findings of fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal that tax had indeed been deducted at source by the assessee when making contributions to the premium. This finding was not challenged and was upheld, leading to the rejection of the Commissioner's contention.

        Control over funds under the pension and life assurance plan:
        The crucial aspect of the case was the control over the funds under the pension and life assurance plan. The rules were amended in 1957, transferring control of the amounts due under the policies to the plan members. This change in control was significant in determining the timing of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The court held that the entire amount contributed by the assessee must be considered as expended during the relevant accounting period for the assessment year 1959-60, following the rule amendment.

        In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment clarified the interpretation of business expenditure, the allowability of deductions for contributions made towards the pension and life assurance plan, the application of tax deduction at source provisions, and the impact of the control over funds under the plan on the timing of expenditure.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found