Chennai Court January 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vasu Farms (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2006
Reported in: [2006]287ITR38(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. As against the order of the Tribunal dt. 7th March 2005 in ITA No. 1969/Mad/1998, the Revenue has filed this appeal by formulating the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the lower authorities and holding that the expenditure of Rs. 14,58,560 relating to pre-layer stage for providing feed and medicines for the chicks is revenue expenditure for the purpose of assessee's business in poultry-farming is valid2. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee is engaged in production and sale of eggs. For the relevant assessment year, the AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act and disallowed a sum of Rs. 14,58,560 being feed and other expenses to birds' pre-layer stage. On appeal, the CIT(A) justified the action of the AO in disallowing the expenditure incurred towards feed, medicines, etc. on birds before they reac...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanco Trans Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR51(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by formulating the following questions of law for our consideration :Tax Cases (Appeal) No. 1378 of 2005 : (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deferred revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of certain repair/renovation works is deductible as revenue expenditure in asst. yr. 1995-96, when the work was undertaken in the year 1993-94 ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deferred revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of certain repair/renovation works is deductible as revenue expenditure on the ground that since the premises was leased, there could not be any enduring benefit and (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Department's appeal without taking cognisance of two vital grounds : (a) Validity of revised r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›