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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 Deduction Allowed for Professional Fees in High Court Decision</h1> The High Court held that the sum of Rs. 16,000 paid by the assessee as professional fees to its tax consultants was an admissible deduction under section ... Firm of chartered accountants were the assessee`s tax consultants - sum paid by the assessee as professional fees to its tax consultants - it is an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act, 1922 Issues Involved:1. Whether the sum of Rs. 16,000 paid by the assessee as professional fees to its tax consultants was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Professional Fees as Deduction under Section 10(2)(xv):The assessee, a limited company engaged in the transport of cargo, claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,000 paid to its tax consultants, Messrs. K. C. Bose & Co., for services rendered over twelve assessment years. The Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 8,000 of this amount, deeming it related to appeal proceedings and not allowable as a deduction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision.Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the consolidated fee of Rs. 2,000 per year was paid irrespective of appeals, and thus, the entire amount should be deductible. The Tribunal agreed, citing commercial expediency and the immateriality of whether the fees were for proceedings before the Income-tax Officer or appellate authorities. The Tribunal held that the entire Rs. 16,000 was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv).The High Court examined whether the expenses for professional fees were laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The court referred to the English rule 3(a) and compared it with section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, noting the legislative shift from 'for the purpose of earning such profits or gains' to 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation.'The court discussed the differing views in Smith's Potato Estates Ltd. v. Bolland, where the majority held that costs incurred in tax proceedings were not deductible as they were not wholly and exclusively for trade purposes. In contrast, Viscount Simon and Lord Oaksey opined that such expenses were for the purpose of trade, as they aimed to correct tax assessments and increase funds available for business.The High Court preferred the latter view, supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. These cases emphasized that expenses incurred for commercial expediency and indirectly facilitating business operations were deductible.The court also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which dealt with wealth-tax and not income-tax. The court concluded that income-tax expenses were incurred in the assessee's capacity as a trader and were deductible.Finally, the court referred to Mannalal Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, distinguishing it on the basis that the current case involved expenses for protecting business income, not the payment of income-tax or interest on borrowed money for tax payment.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the sum of Rs. 16,000 paid by the assessee as professional fees to its tax consultants was an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and there was no order as to costs.Separate Judgments:CHATTERJEE J. - I agree.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found