THE DY CIT1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. They are to be capitalized and reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an electricity distribution company, collected 'supply affording charges' and 'electrification charges' from customers for new connections. The Assessing Officer treated these as revenue receipts, while the assessee claimed them as capital receipts to reduce the cost of fixed assets.
What were the issues?
Whether 'supply affording charges' and 'electrification charges' collected by an electricity distribution company are capital or revenue receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd.29 citing14 ITR 622 · 1946 · HC
- Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co. v. CIT19 citing41 ITR 608 · 1961 · SC · Read judgment
- 1. Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co. v. CIT8 citing26 ITR 15 · 1946 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
Per Bench :
These are four appeals by the revenue for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 & 2007-08 and one cross appeal by the assesse for Assessment Year 2007-08 directed against the four separate orders for Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi dated 26.12.2022, 26.12.2022, 26.12.2022 & 28.01.2023 respectively. The
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.
More judgments on Section 43(1)
- Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), KolkataITA 1604/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs Grasim Industries Ltd, MumbaiITA 6530/MUM/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026