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>Tribunal grants relief to assessee, allowing deductions under IT Act, upholding CIT(A) decisions.</h1> <h3>ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.</h3> ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER. - TTJ 010, 406, Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 40A(b) of the IT Act.2. Disallowance of business development expenses.3. Disallowance of car expenses.4. Depreciation on the car.5. Weighted deduction under Section 35B.6. Loss on the sale of machinery.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 40A(b) of the IT Act:The CIT (A) sustained a disallowance of Rs. 4,601 by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(b). The ITO disallowed this amount out of the interest paid by the assessee to M/s A. Duggal & Co., considering it as not applicable under Section 40A(b). However, the Tribunal referred to its earlier decision for the assessment year 1976-77, where a similar disallowance was deleted. Respectfully following this order, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,601.2. Disallowance of Business Development Expenses:The assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 26,417 for holding conferences, which included various costs such as hall hire, transportation, and refreshments. The ITO disallowed Rs. 5,000, considering it as entertainment expenditure. The CIT (A) allowed Rs. 1,000 and confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 4,000. The Tribunal, referring to the judgment in Addl. CIT, A.P. vs. Meddi Venkataratnam & Co. Ltd., held that such expenses for encouraging export business are admissible under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,000.3. Disallowance of Car Expenses:The ITO disallowed Rs. 3,000 out of car expenses. The Tribunal, referring to its earlier order for the assessment year 1976-77, held that there should be no disallowance for a company's car expenses. Respectfully following the earlier order, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,000.4. Depreciation on the Car:In view of the deletion of disallowance on car expenses, the Tribunal directed that full depreciation should be allowed on the car.5. Weighted Deduction under Section 35B:The assessee claimed weighted deduction on various expenditures related to export activities. The ITO allowed partial deductions, while the CIT (A) allowed further deductions on some items. The Tribunal analyzed the following sub-issues:- Foreign Travelling Expenses: The ITO allowed weighted deduction on Rs. 31,776 but disallowed Rs. 46,298, considering it for securing machinery. The CIT (A) allowed 50% of Rs. 46,298. The Tribunal, noting that no part of this expenditure was disallowed in the assessment, directed that weighted deduction should be allowed on the entire expenditure of Rs. 46,298.- Salaries: The ITO did not allow any weighted deduction on Rs. 50,186 claimed for salaries of staff exclusively handling export business. The CIT (A) allowed 50%. The Tribunal, following a Special Bench order, directed that weighted deduction should be allowed on 75% of the expenditure.- Rent: The ITO disallowed any deduction on Rs. 12,000 claimed for rent. The CIT (A) allowed 50%. The Tribunal, following the Special Bench order, upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction on 50% of the expenditure.6. Loss on the Sale of Machinery:The ITO disallowed a loss of Rs. 15,034 on the sale of machinery, suspecting it as an arranged sale to reduce tax. The CIT (A) allowed the loss, finding no evidence of deliberate undervaluation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the transaction involved Maharashtra State Finance Corporation, a government institution, and there was no material to suggest an arranged sale.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, deleting several disallowances and directing full depreciation on the car, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the CIT (A)'s decisions on the issues of weighted deduction and loss on the sale of machinery.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found