49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India v. CIT

218 ITR 598High Court1996#5463 most cited

What is 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India v. CIT authority for?

The nature of expenditure, whether capital or revenue, is determined by its aim, object, and resultant advantage.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

International Airport Authority of India v. CIT · 49 ITR 160 · expenditure nature · capital vs revenue · aim and object · resultant advantage · business expenditure

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 43b(f)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)section 211section 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)house property incomesection 140full and true disclosuresection 271(l)(c)additional depreciation

Judgments citing 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India v. CIT

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 42/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 41/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 40/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 39/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 66/RPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

ITA 170/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 167/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 97/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 163/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 143/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Dy.. C.I.T.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

The Dy. CIT- Cir.-1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfilds Ltd., Bilaspur(Cg)

ITA 152/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

…of the highest fact findings authority as well as in the ratio of the case in Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 160 (SC); International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 218 ITR 598 (Born); Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT reported in 75 ITR 373 (SC). The order of the AO is being sustained by the First Appellate Authority by respectfully following the above decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal analyzed the claim on the basis of aim and object of the expenditure as well as resultant advantage to characterize whet…

Shri Dev Suman Saini, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

…ment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the 8 Shri Dev Suman Saini vs ACIT, Circle – 6, Jaipur case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The referenc…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…f the assessee by treating it as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who following the ratio laid down in the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works, V/s CIT 949 ITR 1) (SC), Hardilla Chemicals V/s CIT (218 ITR 598) and CIT V/s Serikells Glass Work (P) Ltd, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by upholding the action of the AO treating the 8 and 4374/Mum/2005 said expenditure as capital expenditure. Further aggrieved by the decision of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The ld.AR submitted vehemently submitted before benc…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…f the assessee by treating it as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who following the ratio laid down in the case of Sitalpur Sugar Works, V/s CIT 949 ITR 1) (SC), Hardilla Chemicals V/s CIT (218 ITR 598) and CIT V/s Serikells Glass Work (P) Ltd, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by upholding the action of the AO treating the 8 and 4374/Mum/2005 said expenditure as capital expenditure. Further aggrieved by the decision of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The ld.AR submitted vehemently submitted before benc…

Ghodawat Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT(Hq), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 886/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal & O.P. Agrwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja
Section 4(1)Section 48(1)

…or transfer could not be effected, amount paid for removing that encumbrance will fall under clause (i) of section 48(1) – Held, yes.” 2. CIT Vs. Eagle Theatres (Del) ITA 1287/2011 (Pages 8-12) 3.242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT Vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel (pages 13-14 4. 218 ITR 598 (Bom) Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (pages 15- 20) 5.161 ITD 211 (ITAT, Ahd.)Nanubhai Keshavlal Chokshi HUF vs. ITO (pages 21-26) As regards observation of Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not parted with the asset, kind attention of Hon’ble bench is invited to various clauses of Lease deed,(APB 8-17) which provides that leaseis“Irrevocable for 9…

ITA 1287/2011 vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA/1287/2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…8(ii). The said point is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Th…

CIT vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA - 1287 / 2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…8(ii). The said point is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Th…

Airport Authority of India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi I

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/792/2008HC Delhi16 Dec 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO FULL BENCHES

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On: 2.12.2011 % Judgment Pronounced On: 16.12. 2011 + IT A 792/2008 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ... APPELLANT Through :. Mr. O.S. Bajpai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manasvini Bajpai and Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocates. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASW AR A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: For orders, see ITA 432/2008. DECEMBER 16, 2011 skb 1!;!':1~ ACTING CHIE; JUSTICE 7jwJ…