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

218 ITR 598High Court1996#5555 most cited

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

The aim, object, and resultant advantage of an expenditure are considered to characterize whether it is capital or revenue in nature.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

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

Issues it is cited on

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

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…

Showing 120 of 21 · Page 1 of 2