SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Cal) 113

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Appellant
Versus
KALINGA OTTO (P. ) LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.ROY, M.L.BHATTACHARJI, R.N.Dutt, S.C.SEN

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, we are faced with the familiar but not too easy question whether the particular expenditure should be allowed as a revenue expenditure or not. This reference arises out of the assessment far the assessment years 1964-65 to 1966-67 and the relevant accounting years were calendar years 1963 to 1965, respectively. The assessee is a company which carried on, at the relevant time, the business of execution of contracts. There was an agreement entered into between Hindustan Steel Limited, hereinafter called HSL and Dr. C. Otto and Co. , Gmbh (German company), the assessee-company, incidentally the name of which has been subseuently changed and we have, by an order passed today, altered that name, and hereinafter the said company is called the assessee-company. The contract was for (1) expansion of coke oven plant, and (2) construction of houses/bungalows including furniture, sanitary and electrical installations in Rourkela Township. It would be appropriate, in our opinion, to describe the heading of the contract which was as follows ; "contract for the Expansion of Coke Oven Plant at Rourkela,








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top