133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

143 ITR 822High Court1983#6856 most cited

What is 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payment to eliminate competition by a rival firm for a certain period, often in the form of consideration for a manufacturing agreement, is considered a revenue expenditure rather than a capital expenditure.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 133 ITR 559 · 143 ITR 822 · non-compete fees · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · elimination of competition · manufacturing agreement consideration

Judgments citing 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) have failed to…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) have failed to…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a payment to eliminate competition by payment to rival firm for certain period by paying it every year in form of manufacturing agreement consideration. For this proposition he relied upon 221 ITR 199, 87 ITR 691, 143 ITR 822 and 139 ITR 581 and 102 ITD 356. The assessee is aggrieved with the above finding and raised this ground before us. 13. The ld AR Shri Rohit Jain, advocate, raised contentions relying on plethora of judicial precedents to submit that non compete fees is a revenue expenditure. His submission is that the assessing officer and CIT(A) have failed to…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 471/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 470/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 312/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 310/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 309/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement with various parties. Hence, the benefit coming to the assessee out of Investm…

Total Lubricants India Ltd ( Now Known As Total Oil India P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA o

ITA 7021/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ture, therefore, disallowed expenditure claimed by the assessee. While doing so, the AO has relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1983) 143 ITR 822 (Guj) and observed that to ascertain whether expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure, the Court has laid down certain tests as per which when expenditure is incurred only once and for all and with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of the trade ordinarily, such…

M/S Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

ITA 5286/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…t capital in nature. It is a payment, which is to be made in connection with redemption of Deep discount bonds and hence cannot be claimed as a revenue expense. It has been held in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Carp. Ltd., VS. elT (1983) reported at 143 ITR 822 (Gujarat) that where expenditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

ITA 5249/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…t capital in nature. It is a payment, which is to be made in connection with redemption of Deep discount bonds and hence cannot be claimed as a revenue expense. It has been held in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Carp. Ltd., VS. elT (1983) reported at 143 ITR 822 (Gujarat) that where expenditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

ITA 5248/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…t capital in nature. It is a payment, which is to be made in connection with redemption of Deep discount bonds and hence cannot be claimed as a revenue expense. It has been held in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Carp. Ltd., VS. elT (1983) reported at 143 ITR 822 (Gujarat) that where expenditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

ITA 5247/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…t capital in nature. It is a payment, which is to be made in connection with redemption of Deep discount bonds and hence cannot be claimed as a revenue expense. It has been held in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Carp. Ltd., VS. elT (1983) reported at 143 ITR 822 (Gujarat) that where expenditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of…

ACIT, Noida vs. M/S Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

ITA 5246/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…t capital in nature. It is a payment, which is to be made in connection with redemption of Deep discount bonds and hence cannot be claimed as a revenue expense. It has been held in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Carp. Ltd., VS. elT (1983) reported at 143 ITR 822 (Gujarat) that where expenditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of…

133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (143 ITR 822) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax