23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

264 ITR 370High Court2003#6316 most cited

What is 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenses are to be allowed proportionately, with the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year allowed in the year under consideration and the balance deferred to subsequent years.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v CIT · 23 ITR 230 · proportionate expenses · deferral of expenses · accounting treatment of expenses · revenue expenditure · business expenditure · expenditure allocation · deductible expenses · financial year allocation

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 35(2ab)corporate guaranteesection 14a(2)section 92ca(3)section 35revenue expendituresection 40(a)(ia)book profitscapital expendituresection 144ctransfer pricing adjustment

Judgments citing 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Fairbridge Capital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually
Section 143(3)Section 263

…d to match the corresponding benefit derived over such period: • Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) • CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited 2004) 186 CIR 59 (Rajasthan) • CIT v. S.M. Holding and Finance P. Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 370 (Bombay) 2.11 In light of the above, it is submitted that the expenditure incurred by the Company on share-based. payments of INR 63,280,228 should be allowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act 5.2 The submissions made by the assessee are carefully perused and considered. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that as per assessee's o…

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited CTS No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACF 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to A…

DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd Q, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited CTS No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACF 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to A…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3786/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…accepted that redemption premium amount has been accepted as accrued. Nevertheless the case law in this regard duly support the proposition. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of S.M.Holding& Finance (P) Ltd. 264 ITR 370 as under:- “Both the above appeals raised a common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Department. They concern asst. yr. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce herein the facts in IT Appeal No. 2…

Acc Ltd (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3490/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit – Range-1(1) (Formerly Known As The Associated Mumbai Cement Companies Ltd.) Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - 1(1) V. M/S. Acc Limited Room No. 79, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 14A(1)

…accepted that redemption premium amount has been accepted as accrued. Nevertheless the case law in this regard duly support the proposition. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of S.M.Holding& Finance (P) Ltd. 264 ITR 370 as under:- “Both the above appeals raised a common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Department. They concern asst. yr. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce herein the facts in IT Appeal No. 2…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT –CC-8(3) बिधम/ M/s. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6th floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road FT Tower, CTS No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACF5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue by: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोष…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…ind that the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. SM Holding and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2003 264 ITR 370 CIT vs. SM Holding and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2003 264 ITR 370 CIT vs. SM Holding and Finance Pvt. Ltd. 2003 264 ITR 370 Bombay. Before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Bombay. Before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Bombay. Before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the question raised was regarding the claim question raised was regarding the cl…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1515/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: M/s. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 250

…accrued. Nevertheless the case law in M/s. 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd. ITA No.1515/Mum./2022 this regard duly support the proposition. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of S.M.Holding & Finance (P) Ltd. 264 ITR 370 as under:- “Both the above appeals raised a common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Department. They concern asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce herein the facts in IT Appeal No.…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…was treated as revenue expenditure. The Ld.DRP has also relied on the decision of CIT vs Secure Importers Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 611 (Raj) and also the decision in the case of CIT vs ITC Hotels (2011) 334 ITR 109 (Kar), CIT vs SM Holdings & Finance Pvt Ltd (2003) 264 ITR 370 (Bom). From the above observation it is evident that the claim of priority deduction of premium on convertible debentures was allowable in terms of the propositions laid down in the above cited decisions. It is also undisputable fact that the Tribunal has allowed the assessee’s claim by treating the same as revenue expenditure on identical facts.…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…was treated as revenue expenditure. The Ld.DRP has also relied on the decision of CIT vs Secure Importers Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 611 (Raj) and also the decision in the case of CIT vs ITC Hotels (2011) 334 ITR 109 (Kar), CIT vs SM Holdings & Finance Pvt Ltd (2003) 264 ITR 370 (Bom). From the above observation it is evident that the claim of priority deduction of premium on convertible debentures was allowable in terms of the propositions laid down in the above cited decisions. It is also undisputable fact that the Tribunal has allowed the assessee’s claim by treating the same as revenue expenditure on identical facts.…

63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Known As Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. - 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A.KariaFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40Section 92C

…premium had been incurred the moment funds were raised through bonds. The assessee submits that even on facts, the bonds have not been converted into shares. In this regard, the assessee relies on judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of S M Holding 264 ITR 370 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd 269 ITR 461. In case of S M Holding 264 ITR 370 (Bom), copy enclosed at page 599-601 of Paper book 3, the premium on redemption of debentures was disallowed on the ground that the same is contingent liability. The assessee draws attention to para 5 on page 600 of paper book 3.…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…ns have also held that, premium on redemption of FCCB can be amortized over the life of FCCB and be claimed as deduction in the return of income. The Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Holding & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 264 ITR 370. In that case, the assessee had issued zero interest unsecured redeemable convertible debentures of Rs.100 each redeemable after 10 years at a premium of 100%. Assessee claimed before the assessing officer a spread over. Assessee claimed that the premium payable by it was Rs.5,47,50,000 after expiry of 10 years. However, the assessee claimed dedu…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…ns have also held that, premium on redemption of FCCB can be amortized over the life of FCCB and be claimed as deduction in the return of income. The Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Holding & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 264 ITR 370. In that case, the assessee had issued zero interest unsecured redeemable convertible debentures of Rs.100 each redeemable after 10 years at a premium of 100%. Assessee claimed before the assessing officer a spread over. Assessee claimed that the premium payable by it was Rs.5,47,50,000 after expiry of 10 years. However, the assessee claimed dedu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…ns have also held that, premium on redemption of FCCB can be amortized over the life of FCCB and be claimed as deduction in the return of income. The Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Holding & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 264 ITR 370. In that case, the assessee had issued zero interest unsecured redeemable convertible debentures of Rs.100 each redeemable after 10 years at a premium of 100%. Assessee claimed before the assessing officer a spread over. Assessee claimed that the premium payable by it was Rs.5,47,50,000 after expiry of 10 years. However, the assessee claimed dedu…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…ns have also held that, premium on redemption of FCCB can be amortized over the life of FCCB and be claimed as deduction in the return of income. The Ld. AR pointed out the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Holding & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 264 ITR 370. In that case, the assessee had issued zero interest unsecured redeemable convertible debentures of Rs.100 each redeemable after 10 years at a premium of 100%. Assessee claimed before the assessing officer a spread over. Assessee claimed that the premium payable by it was Rs.5,47,50,000 after expiry of 10 years. However, the assessee claimed dedu…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner of (formerly known as Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AADCS8104P Assessee by : Percy J. Pardiwala & Nitesh Josi, ARs’ Revenue by : Jayant Kumar & V. Jenardhanan, DR’s Date of hearing: 12-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 08-06-2018 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Dispute Resolution Pane…

Ge Capital Services India vs. Addl CIT Range 2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2898/DEL/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…ar as moneis due and payable by the parties to whom they are debited. Reliance was placed on As considered in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); and CIT vs S.M.Holding & Finance P.Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 370. On the strength of these decision and arguments it was submitted that the expenses were to be allowed proportionately i.e. the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year was to be allowed in the year under consideration and the balance had to be deferred to the subsequent year, as was done by the Assessing Officer in the instant case, which w…

DCIT Circle 12 (1) vs. G.E. Capital Services India

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 2808/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14ASection 234DSection 45J

…ar as moneis due and payable by the parties to whom they are debited. Reliance was placed on As considered in Keshav Mills Ltd. vs CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC); and CIT vs S.M.Holding & Finance P.Ltd. [2003] 264 ITR 370. On the strength of these decision and arguments it was submitted that the expenses were to be allowed proportionately i.e. the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year was to be allowed in the year under consideration and the balance had to be deferred to the subsequent year, as was done by the Assessing Officer in the instant case, which w…

23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (264 ITR 370) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax