166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd.

350 ITR 1High Court2013#10554 most cited

What is 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred on development of infrastructure like flyovers, and on activities like horticulture for environmental compliance, if mandated by government policy or regulations, is allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1).

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. DTTDC Ltd · 350 ITR 1 · section 37(1) · business expenditure · flyover development · environmental compliance · government mandate · allowable deduction

Judgments citing 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd.

M/S. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3772/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Hindustan Vs. Dcit (Ltu) Insecticides Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Core-6, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 Pan : Aaach 0905 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Arora, C.A. Revenue By Shri Lakshminarayan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 143(3)

…ligation to incur these expenditures according to the policy of the Govt. of India. Such expenditure is held to be allowable as a business expenditure in several judicial precedents notably amongst them is Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 wherein, expenditure on development of flyovers etc was held to be allowable. Furthermore, coordinate bench in 96 ITD 186 has held that even implementation of the 20 points programmes expenditure are also allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in case of Public Sector Undertaking. In view of these judicial precedents the above expenditure on CSR…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…8) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) (9) Poddar Projects Ltd. v. CIT, 28 taxmann.com 94 (Cal) (10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Ferguson & Co. v. ACIT, Mumbai 2011-TIOL-604-ITAT- MUM. (16) RSM & Co. v. ACIT, 125 ITD 243 (Mum) 24. The ld. AR submitted that from all the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the following principles may be discerned:- • Whe…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…8) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) (9) Poddar Projects Ltd. v. CIT, 28 taxmann.com 94 (Cal) (10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Ferguson & Co. v. ACIT, Mumbai 2011-TIOL-604-ITAT- MUM. (16) RSM & Co. v. ACIT, 125 ITD 243 (Mum) 24. The ld. AR submitted that from all the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the following principles may be discerned:- • Whe…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…. Being so, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid expenditure is liable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) ii. CIT vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. 350 ITR 1 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) iv. CIT vs. India Radiator Ltd. 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 3214/Del/2013 (Del. ITAT) vi. Airport Authority of India vs. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del HC) 26. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The horticultur…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…. Being so, the Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid expenditure is liable to deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) ii. CIT vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. 350 ITR 1 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) iv. CIT vs. India Radiator Ltd. 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 3214/Del/2013 (Del. ITAT) vi. Airport Authority of India vs. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del HC) 26. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The horticultur…

DCIT 10 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed as above

ITA 2730/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14A

…old the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. 19. Another issue raised for A.Y. 2014-15 is that learned CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance of expenditure of CSR, overlooking the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. (350 ITR 1), which held that where income is utilized for self imposed obligation it signifies ‘application of income’, hence it is pleaded that this expenditure is not allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. 20. This issue relates to fresh claim before learned CIT(A). It was claimed before learned CIT(A) during assessment proceedings that Assessee vide order sheet da…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…Lubrizol Advances Materials India P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 150 ITD 538. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases: i) IAC v. Nuchem Plastics Ltd.: 35 TTJ 559 (Del.) ii) DCIT v. Hero Moto Corp. Ltd. : ITA No.l609/Del/2016 (Del. Trib.) iii) CIT v. D.T.T.D.C Ltd.: 350 ITR 1 (Del) iv) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No. 5289/Del./74-75 v) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.: ITA No.: 3925/D/02 (Del.-ITAT) vi) JCIT v. Deversons Industries Ltd. 290 ITR (AT) 287 (Ahd) The Ld. AR also pointed out that Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 37 of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.04.2015 to…

ACIT, Circle-1 vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 374/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…Vs. Madras Auto Services [P] Ltd 233 ITR 468 [SC] b) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 [SC] c) L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293 [SC] d) CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies ltd 172 ITR 257 [SC] e) CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 [DEL] 68. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are misplaced. It is the say of the ld. DR that the helipad belongs to the assessee and to protect the same from overflow of water, the assessee has constructed boundary wall. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the boundary wall wa…

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-I

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…Vs. Madras Auto Services [P] Ltd 233 ITR 468 [SC] b) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 [SC] c) L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293 [SC] d) CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies ltd 172 ITR 257 [SC] e) CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 [DEL] 68. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are misplaced. It is the say of the ld. DR that the helipad belongs to the assessee and to protect the same from overflow of water, the assessee has constructed boundary wall. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the boundary wall wa…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result we quash the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by ld CIT dated 24

ITA 1784/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishigail (India) Ltd, Cit, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi-Iv, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg1209J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…ligation to incur these expenditures according to the policy of the Govt. of India. Such expenditure is held to be allowable as a business expenditure in several judicial precedents notably amongst them is Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 wherein, expenditure on development of flyovers etc was held to be allowable. Furthermore, coordinate bench in 96 ITD 186 has held that even implementation of the 20 points programmes expenditure are also allowable u/s 371(1) of the Income Tax Act in case of Public Sector Undertaking. In view of these judicial precedents the above expenditure on CS…

166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. (350 ITR 1) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax