DIPESH KUMAR BETALA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 196/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 October 2015AY 2009-107 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were revenue in nature and therefore deductible. The disallowance by the revenue authorities was consequently set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed certain expenses as deductible. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, treating them as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the expenses incurred by the assessee were revenue or capital in nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

��

More judgments on Section 37(1)

Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur
ITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat
ITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, Ahmednagar
ITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), Indore
ITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →