NDLI: Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Income Tax Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Income Tax Act, 1922-s.10(2)(XV)-Assessee Company-Entering into agreement with another company appointing its nominee as distributors of assessee's products-In lieu of benefit of technical knowledge assessee paid to the distributors for meeting initial expenses of establishment of distributorship-Assessee claiming deduction-Payment whether capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessee-company entered into an agreement with M/s. Charles Walker and Company, London which, inter alia, stipulated that the latter would permit the use by the assessee of a number of registered trade marks specified in the agreement and disclose to the approved officers of the assessee the technique, practices and application of specialised tanning processes. Paragraph 7 of the agreement provided that the assessee would appoint Textile and General Supplies, nominee of the Charles Walker, as its distributors for the sale of industrial leather manufactured by it in India and the assessee would pay Rs.50,000 to the distributors for meeting the initial expenses of establishing the distributorship. This agreement was to be in force for a period of seven years. Simultaneously, another agreement was entered into between the assessee and Textile and General Supplies for a period of seven years, but no reference was made therein to the obligation of the assessee to pay Rs.50,000 to the distributors. For the assessment year 1959-60 the assessee claimed the payment of Rs.50,000 to Textile and General Supplies as a deduction permissible under s.10(2)(XV) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which was rejected by the Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on the ground that the said payment was in the nature of a capital expenditure. In the Reference, the High Court allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the payment in question was a revenue expenditure.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee
Neutral Citation	1987 INSC 31
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow
Respondent	British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur
SCR	[1987] 2 S.C.R. 133
Judgement Date	1987-02-03
Case Number	1163

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur

Please Log-in to view this content

British India Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p. Lucknow

Commissioner of Income-tax U.p. Lucknow Vs. The Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. Kanpur

M/s. Kanpur Vanaspati Stores, Kanpur Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.p. Lucknow

Commissioner of Income Tax U.p, Lucknow Vs. J.k. Hosiery Factory, Kanpur

Juggilal Kamlapat, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow

Commissioner of Income -tax U.p. Lucknow Vs. M/s. Gangadhar Baijnath General Gang, Kanpur

Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p., Lucknow

Ommissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Vs. U.p. State Industrial Development Corporation

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

British India Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p. Lucknow

Commissioner of Income-tax U.p. Lucknow Vs. The Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. Kanpur

M/s. Kanpur Vanaspati Stores, Kanpur Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.p. Lucknow

Commissioner of Income Tax U.p, Lucknow Vs. J.k. Hosiery Factory, Kanpur

Juggilal Kamlapat, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow

Commissioner of Income -tax U.p. Lucknow Vs. M/s. Gangadhar Baijnath General Gang, Kanpur

Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.p., Lucknow

Ommissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur Vs. U.p. State Industrial Development Corporation

Commissioner of Income-tax, U.p., Lucknow Vs. British India Corpn. Ltd., Kanpur