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
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1969 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-tax paid by it for the same assessment year as an allowable deduction. The assessee also contributed in the relevant previous year a sum of Rs. 41,430 to the Government in pursuance of a scheme for development of roads in cane-growing rural areas. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of this amount on the ground that its business of manufacturing sugar depends chiefly on development of roads for transportation of sugar-cane into its manufactory. Hence, it was claimed that the expenditure in question must be considered to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Both the claims were turned down by the Income-tax Officer. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the consequential additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hose of Dewan Sugar and General Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (I. T. R. No. 835 of 1963 decided by this Bench on 12-9-1969). That case related to assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. During the corresponding previous years the assessee had paid two sums of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively, as contribution to the Cane Centre Roads Development Fund. The assessee then claimed these two amounts as deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. On a reference, this court held that the deduction was not a permissible expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act and observed : " When new roads....