Alembic Chemical Works (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Auto Services (supra) and CIT vs. HMT Limited

203 ITR 820High Court1993#2078 most cited

What is Alembic Chemical Works (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Auto Services (supra) and CIT vs. HMT Limited authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the elimination of business competition, such as non-compete fees, is classified as either revenue or capital expenditure based on whether it creates an enduring benefit for the assessee's business.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. HMT Limited · 203 ITR 820 · elimination of competition · non-compete fee · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · business deduction · Section 10(2)(xv) · Section 40A(2) · relinquishment of right

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of righttest of enduring benefitsection 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feesection 2(31)slump salesection 51going concernsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)enduring benefit

Judgments citing Alembic Chemical Works (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Auto Services (supra) and CIT vs. HMT Limited

Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-8, Ahmedabad

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…humble understanding, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble SC cannot applied in each and every case without examining the necessary and relevant facts. 13.12 We also find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.M.T. Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 820 has allowed such lease premium as revenue expenses. In that case the land was acquired on lease for 95 years and the assessee paid upfront lease premium of ₹ 12,09,200/-. Thereafter, the assessee was liable pay lease rent at ₹1 per annum. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO by observing as under: “T…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…wing judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Cinecita (P) Ltd.- [(1982) 137 ITR 652 (Bom)]. (ii) Richardson Hindustan ltd. Vs. CIT- [(1988) 169 ITR 516 (Bom)] (iii) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services P. Ltd.- [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. H.M.T. LTd. – [(1993) 203 ITR 820 (Karn)] (v) DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. – [(2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj)] (vi) ACIT Vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd.- [(2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Del)] (vii) CIT Vs. Hari Vignesh Motors P. Ltd. [(2006) 282 ITR 338 (Madras)].‖ Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid stamp duty expenses incurred by the asses…

DCIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…perty [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd, 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per se is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as ITA. Nos. 59 & 60/M/2019 230 & 231/M/2019 A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 it is towards rent for the use of the property, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. (v) The Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Manufacturing Co, [124 ITR 1 (SC)] has he…

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…mited [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per sc is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as if is towards rent for the use of the property, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. (v) The Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Manufacturing Co, [124 ITR I (SC)] has held that even if the payment gives benefits for a period of time…

Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…mited [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per sc is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as if is towards rent for the use of the property, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. (v) The Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Manufacturing Co, [124 ITR I (SC)] has held that even if the payment gives benefits for a period of time…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ture. 9.5 The learned counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the judicial precedents relied upon by him. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble, Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT, 203 ITR 820 where the premium of ₹ 12,09,200/- paid by the assessee to acquire land on lease for 95 years was held as revenue expenses because the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ture. 9.5 The learned counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the judicial precedents relied upon by him. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble, Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT, 203 ITR 820 where the premium of ₹ 12,09,200/- paid by the assessee to acquire land on lease for 95 years was held as revenue expenses because the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ture. 9.5 The learned counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the judicial precedents relied upon by him. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble, Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT, 203 ITR 820 where the premium of ₹ 12,09,200/- paid by the assessee to acquire land on lease for 95 years was held as revenue expenses because the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ture. 9.5 The learned counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the judicial precedents relied upon by him. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble, Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT, 203 ITR 820 where the premium of ₹ 12,09,200/- paid by the assessee to acquire land on lease for 95 years was held as revenue expenses because the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in…

M/S. Multitude Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2722/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) M/S. Multitude Infrastructure Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Ece House, Income Tax, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Circle – 17(1) New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi (Pan : Aafcm 5511 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Bansal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 11.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2019

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…vs. Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. 254 ITR 201 (Madras) d) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Pharmaceutical India Ltd. 329 ITR 479 e) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [233 ITR 468 (SC)] f) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. H.M.T. Ltd. 203 ITR 820 4 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature and which should have been capitalized by the assessee. The assessee is an owner of the said land as per the terms of the lease deed and, therefore, the assessee’s claim in its P&L Account of lease ren…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S V S LAD and SONS

In the result, the second

ITA/100103/2014HC Karnataka27 Nov 2019

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

Section 132Section 260ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA I.T.A. NO.100103/2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SADUM ROAD, GULBARGA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.TULAJAPPA KALBURGI, ADV.) AND: M/S. V.S.LAD & SONS, PRASANTH NIVAS, KRISHNA NAGAR, SANDUR 583120, BALLARI DISTRICT, PAN AACFV3909R. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTIO…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…lity to carry on business profitably by paying a nominal lease rent together with lump sum amount of Rs.48 lakh. The fact that the lease deed was registered was irrelevant. Therefore, it was held that the payment was revenue in nature. ii. CITv,v. H.M.T Ltd - 203 ITR 820 (Kar HC) - A lease agreement was entered into with MIDC for the lease of the plot on which the assessee was mandatorily to construct a building within a period of 2 years for the use of the assessee. After the construction, the assessee was entitled to use both the land and building for 95 years. Under the agreement, the assessee paid a premium o…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…lity to carry on business profitably by paying a nominal lease rent together with lump sum amount of Rs.48 lakh. The fact that the lease deed was registered was irrelevant. Therefore, it was held that the payment was revenue in nature. ii. CITv,v. H.M.T Ltd - 203 ITR 820 (Kar HC) - A lease agreement was entered into with MIDC for the lease of the plot on which the assessee was mandatorily to construct a building within a period of 2 years for the use of the assessee. After the construction, the assessee was entitled to use both the land and building for 95 years. Under the agreement, the assessee paid a premium o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…relied upon the following decisions:- i. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute’s case (124 ITR 1). ii. CIT v Madras Auto Services P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. iii. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34. iv. CIT V HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820. v. CIT v. Gemini Arts P Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) vi. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. vii. CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 296 ITR 702. viii. Amway India Enterprises v DCIT 111 ITD 112 (Del) (SB) 5. Regarding payment of sum of Rs. 45.5 crores to AAI in respect of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) under clause 5.4 of OM…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…relied upon the following decisions:- i. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute’s case (124 ITR 1). ii. CIT v Madras Auto Services P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. iii. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34. iv. CIT V HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820. v. CIT v. Gemini Arts P Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) vi. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. vii. CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 296 ITR 702. viii. Amway India Enterprises v DCIT 111 ITD 112 (Del) (SB) 5. Regarding payment of sum of Rs. 45.5 crores to AAI in respect of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) under clause 5.4 of OM…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1379/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1379/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बनाम/ Acit (Ltu) – 1 M/S. Gujarat Ambuja World Trade Centre, Cements Ltd. Vs. Centre – 1, 29Th Floor, 122, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Soumen AdakFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…as denied by AO. In appeal the disallowance was confirmed and thereafter penalty was levied. The assessee claimed that the time of filing of return of income the issue was covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Kerla High Court in CIT Vs. HMT (1993) 203 ITR 820. The similar claim was allowed in A.Y.1997-98 (page 76 to 79 of PB). It is settled law that where two legally sustainable views are available on the point and the assessee adopt one of the possible view in preference to the other, than it cannot be considered a case of concealment of income. The similar view was held in Uniflex Cables Ltd. Vs. DC…

ITO (TDS) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Atul Agarwal & Sons, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5196/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5196/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: None
Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…under Chapter XVII-B of the Act and the assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the lump sum payment made to CIDCO which the assessee failed to do so. The AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Limited (1993) 203 ITR 820(Kar.) . It was observed by the AO that the TDS liability arises the moment the party’s account is credited or payment is made whichever is earlier. Thus, the A.O. treated the assessee as assessee in default in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and for non-payment of interest thereon. The A.O. accord…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ue of rent:  CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd.: 233 ITR 0468 (SC)  DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd.: 329 ITR 479 (Guj)- Revenue‘s SLP Dismissed in SLP No.33784/09 vide order dated 4.12.2009, reported at 325 ITR (st) 6.  CIT v. H. M.T. Ltd. (No. 2): 203 ITR 820 (Kar)  CIT v. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd.: 296 ITR 702 (Mad.)  CIT v. Gemini Arts P. Ltd.: 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) (SLP dismissed)  United Phosphorus Ltd. v. ACIT: [2015] 230 Taxman 596 (Gujarat)  M/s. Lupin Limited v. JCIT: ITA No.5088/Mum/2005 (Mum. Trib.)  Emerson Network Power (India) P Ltd v. ACIT: ITA No. 118/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.)  GMM Pfaudler…

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

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

…denied by AO. In appeal the disallowance was confirmed and thereafter penalty was levied. The assessee claimed that at the time of filing of return of income the issue was covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Kerla High Court in CIT vs. HMT (1993) 203 ITR 820. The similar claim was allowed in AY 1997-98 (page 76 to 79 of PB). It is settled law that where two legally sustainable views are available on the point and the assessee adopt one of the possible view in preference to the other, than it cannot be considered a case of concealment of income. The similar view was held in Uniflex Cables Ltd. vs. DCI…

Indiawin Sports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 5290/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5290&5291/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2010-2011) Indianwin Sports Private Vs. Acit, Cc-35, Room Limited, Court House, 3Rd No.104, Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 8195 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.C.S.Naik सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. In Both These Appeals The Assessee Is Aggrieved For Decline Of Annual Payment Being Franchise Fees Paid To Bcci To Participate In The Indian Premier League (Ipl) By Holding The Same As Capital In Nature For Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Owning, Managing & Operating 'Mumbai Indian' Team Of Indian Premier League (Ipl). The Assessee Has Been Granted Perpetual Franchisee For The 'Mumbai Indian' Team. The Assessee Is Franchise Holder Of Ipl I.E. Indian

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik
Section 139Section 143(3)

…perty [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd, 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per se is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as it is towards rent for the use of the property, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. (v) The Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Manufacturing Co, [124 ITR 1 (SC)] has held that even if the payment gives benefits for a period of time…