Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Tax Appeal Outcome: Partial relief granted to assessee under section 35C, 'price insurance' claim disallowed.</h1> <h3>Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> The department's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partially allowed. The assessee was granted relief under section 35C for expenses ... Business Expenditure, Sale Proceeds, Weighted Deduction Issues Involved:1. Relief under section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Depreciation in respect of immovable properties at Vijayawada and Tanuku.3. Disallowance of alleged liability for 'price insurance'.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Relief under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961:Summary of the Issue:The assessee claimed a weighted deduction under section 35C for various expenses related to processing seeds, which was partially allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) but contested by both the assessee and the department.Detailed Analysis:- The assessee claimed weighted deduction at 120% of the expenditure incurred on processing seeds, totaling Rs. 13,81,187.- The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, arguing that the total expenditure was recovered through sales and that section 35C applies only to companies engaged in agro-based industries, not those manufacturing seeds.- The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the claim, stating that section 35C applies to services rendered to agriculturists but excluded depreciation, interest, and overhead expenses from the deduction.- The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35C, referencing the Allahabad High Court decision in Tarai Development Corpn. v. CIT.- The Tribunal directed the ITO to recompute the expenditure incurred towards services rendered after deducting any consideration received and to extend the relief to other items claimed by the assessee, in line with the Allahabad High Court judgment.2. Depreciation in Respect of Immovable Properties at Vijayawada and Tanuku:Summary of the Issue:The assessee claimed depreciation on properties acquired from the National Seeds Corporation, which was disallowed by the ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) due to the absence of registered sale deeds.Detailed Analysis:- The assessee acquired capital assets worth Rs. 26,66,640.90, but sale deeds for properties valued at Rs. 13,41,432 were not executed.- The ITO disallowed depreciation, stating the ownership was not vested with the corporation.- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, citing the necessity of ownership for granting depreciation.- The Tribunal, referencing the Allahabad High Court decision in U.P. State Agro Industrial Corpn. Ltd. and section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, allowed the depreciation claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee was de facto owner enjoying use and possession of the properties.3. Disallowance of Alleged Liability for 'Price Insurance':Summary of the Issue:The assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 3,42,504 for 'price insurance' as per a quadripartite agreement, which was disallowed by the ITO and Commissioner (Appeals).Detailed Analysis:- The ITO rejected the claim, considering it a contingent liability and not an outgoing.- The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the ITO's view, stating the liability was not accrued or ascertained.- The Tribunal agreed with the authorities below, stating that the 'price insurance account' represented a reserve for future contingencies and did not constitute an enforceable debt by a third party against the appellant. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.Conclusion:- The appeal filed by the department was dismissed.- The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed in part, specifically in relation to the weighted deduction under section 35C and depreciation on immovable properties. The disallowance of the 'price insurance' claim was upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found