| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 90 1981 SLD 90 1981 PTD 226 (1981) 44 TAX 60 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos. 1831 to 1833 of 1972, decision dated:17-04-1974
P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ
S, C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate with him) for Appellant. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with hire) for
Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 1831 to 1833 of 1972, decision dated:17-04-1974
P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ
S, C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate with him) for Appellant. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with hire) for
Respondent
MADHAV PRASAD JATIAvsCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U. P
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section: 10,10(2)(tit),(xv),12(2)
Income-Act (XI of 1922)----Ss. 10(2) (tit), (xv) & 12(2)-Business expenditure -Interest-Deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital under S. 10(2)(3)-Necessary conditions for: money must have been borrowed by assessee for purpose of business and interest must have been paid on such amount and claimed as deduction-Claim for deduction in respect of expenditure under S. 10(Z)(xv)--Conditions necessary for: expenditure allowance as described in cls. (i) to (Av) must be in nature of capital expenditure nr personal expenses of assessee and must, have been expended wholly and exclusively for purpose of his business Expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in S. 10(2)(iii) and also in S. 10(2) (xv)-Wider in scope than expression "for the purpose of examining income, profits or gains" occurring in S. 12(2)-Scope for allowing deduction under Ss. 10(2)(M) & 10(2)(xv) hence much wider than one available under S. 12(2)---Amount drawn from Bank in overdraft account in order to donate to an educational institution, held not drawn for business purposes and interest paid on such overdraft not permissible expenditure. C. I T. v. Bombay Samachar Ltd. (1969) 74 I T R 23 (Wm.) and C. I. T. v. Kishinchand Chellaram (1977) 1091 T R 569 (Bum.) distinguished. Madhav Pd. Jatia v. C.I. T. (1973) 87 I T R 298 affirmed. Bai Bhuriben Lallubhai v. C. I. T. (1956) 29 I T R 543 (Bum.); C. I. T, v. Malayalam slam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 I T R 140 (S C); Gopal Raj Swarup v. C. W. T. (1970) 77 1 T R 912 (All.); Mannalal Ratanlal v. C. I. T. (1965) 53 I T R 84 (Cal.) and Naunihal Thakar Dass v. C. I. T. (1970) 77 I T R 332 (Pb.) ref. JUDGMENT V. D. TULZAPURKAR, J.-The assessee, Smt. Indermani Jatia, widow of Seth Gangs Sagar Jatia of Khurja, carried on money lending and other businesses and derived income from various sources such as investment in shares, properties and businesses. However the capital assets and income in respect of different sources of income were incorporated in one common set of books. With a view to commemorate the memory of her deceased husband, on October 21, 1955, she promised a donation of Rs. 10 lakhs for setting up an Engineering College at…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492