DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARCHEESH HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, K V RANGA REDDY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that revenue expenditure incurred between the setting up of business and its commencement should be allowed as deduction, as the business was set up and ready for commencement. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions for share capital and loans, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus with supporting evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed expenses of Rs. 1,74,17,172/- as pre-operative expenditure before commencing business operations. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim and also made additions for share capital and loans under Section 68. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether pre-operative expenses incurred after setting up but before commencement of business are allowable as revenue expenditure, and whether share capital and loans were adequately explained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT108 citing26 ITR 151 · 1954 · HC
- Carefour WC& C India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT9 citing53 Taxmann.com 289 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
2 M/s. Archeesh Health Care Private Limited
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 13.11.2024 relating to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs Bnp Paribas Securities India Pvt. Ltd…Mumbai30 Aug 2024Dismissed
Also relies on Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's business was set up and commenced from June 2008 based on evidence like employee appointments and TDS filings.
- ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs Capricorn Identity Services Pvt. Ltd., New…Delhi9 Jun 2023Dismissed
Also relies on Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business is set up but before its formal commencement are allowable as revenue expenditure. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Carefour Wc & C Pvt. Ltd., the T...
- ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai vs C.S.Housing Property Development Pvt. Ltd…Chennai25 Jan 2022Dismissed
Also relies on Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that there is a distinction between setting up and commencing a business. Expenses incurred after the business is set up, even before commencement, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(...
- M/S Monk Akarshala Private Limited, Mumbai vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax…Mumbai3 May 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business is 'set up' but before it 'commences' are deductible. Regarding share premium, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by ...
- Kadavanthara Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs ITO, Ward -4(2), ChennaiBangalore12 May 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the land was indeed stock-in-trade and the expenditure incurred was revenue in nature, allowing the assessee's ground on this issue. However, it upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to treat interest...
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
