Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

91 ITD 280Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#8752 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…evenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. That is why Assessing Officer himself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it pre…

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 472/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…evenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. That is why Assessing Officer himself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it pre…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 336/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…evenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. That is why Assessing Officer himself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it pre…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 285/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…evenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure. That is why Assessing Officer himself allowed the amount debited in the profit and loss account. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it pre…

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 40

…ferred revenue expenditure. In the instant case, even in the preceding year, similar claim of expenses has been allowed by the ITAT and upheld by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd, v. Asstt.CIT [2004] 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.), it.CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 859 (Delhi), Asstt.CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [2005] 1 SOT 347 (Delhi), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. it.CIT [2005] 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) and Charak Pharmaceuticals v. it. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 393 (Mum.), it has been affirmed that where any expenditure is treated as a deferred revenue expenditure, it presup…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ITA 702/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA No. 702 /Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical The ACIT, Industries Ltd.(Erstwhile Central Circle-1, Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs Baroda Ltd.), SPARC, Tandalja, (Respondent) Vadodara-20 PAN: AAACR0127N (Appellant) ITA No. 729 /Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 The Dy.CIT, M/s. Sun Circle-2(1)(1), Pharmaceutical Baroda Vs Industries (Appellant) Ltd.(Erstwhile Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.), SPARC, Tandalja, Vadodara-…

JSM CORPORATION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3236/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3236/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Jsm Corporation Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3) Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. Todi Estate, A Wing, 3Rd Floor, Sunmill Compound, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabch5026K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Pramita Rathi/ Ishwer P. Rathi Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.03.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Revenue Expenses Of Rs.1,92,30,263/- Only Oil Ground That The Assessee Has Shown The Expenses Under The Head Preoperative Expenses In The Books Of Account.

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita Rathi/ Ishwer P. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Padma Ram (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234A

…wed in the interest of justice and in this regard the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Kopran Ltd. (2011) 14 taxmann.com 176 Mumbai and Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyderabad). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. The facts are not disputed. It is not to be seen whether the claim of the assessee is allowable in the relevant A.Y.2008-09. The matter of controversy has been adjudicated by ITAT in the case of ACIT V…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CITI FINANCIAL COSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ny concept of deferred revenue expenditure. That is why AO himself allowed the l/5th of the amount.. Page 18 of 24 ITA No.- 3118/Del/2016. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. ACIT [(2 004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd)], ]CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [(2005)4 SOT 859 (Delhi)], ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [(2005) 1 SOT347 (Delhi)],Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [(2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi)] ;Charak Pharmaceuticals v. JCIT [(2005) 4SOT 393 (Mumbai)],and ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.,117 ITD l(Ahd.)(SB)it has been affirmed that where a…

BIOTROBNIK MEDICAL DEVICES INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), , NEW DEL;HUI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 185/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishibiotrobnik Medical Devices India Vs. Dcit, P. Ltd, Circle-3(1), Unit No. 805-807, 8Th Floor, New Delhi Commercial Complex, Dlf Tower-B, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aadcb1386Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 36Section 37

…ot disputed over the years. It was further held that the claim of the assessee is squarely covered by the various decisions relied upon by the learned CIT – A such as CIT vs. city financial consumer finance Ltd 335 ITR 29, Amar raja Batteries Limited vs. ACIT 91 ITD 280 et cetera. Even otherwise, it is not the claim of the lower authorities that the assessee has incurred the advertisement and sales promotion expenditure not for the purposes of the business of such expenditure are in genuine. The only claim of the learned assessing officer is that the assessee has incurred huge expenditure and therefore it has res…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CITI FINANCIAL COSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 2638/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhito, Ward 6 (2), Vs. M/S. Citi Financial Consumer Finance New Delhi. India Ltd., 3, Local Shopping Centre, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabca3223B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Order : 23.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 92C

…classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise of any concept of deferred revenue 11 expenditure. That is why AO himself allowed the 1/5th of the amount.. In a number of judgments viz. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v. ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd)], JCIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. [(2005)4 SOT 859 (Delhi)], ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. [(2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi)],Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [(2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi)];Charak Pharmaceuticals v. JCIT [(2005) 4SOT 393 40 ITA nos.3144&3145,5514 &5191,2687&2688/Del./2010 (Mumbai)],and ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. DYNOMERK CONTROLS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(2)

…ine of business or new products. The ld.A.R. vehemently defended the order of CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of Revenue. In support of his contentions, the ld.A.R. placed reliance on following decisions : 4 1. Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs. ACIT 91 ITD 280. 2. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 4 SOT 859 (Delhi). 3. ACIT Vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 4. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. JCIT 3 SOT 572 (Delhi). 5. Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. JCIT 4SOT 393. 6. Madras Industrial Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 802. 7. Kedatnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 SC. 5. Shri M.K. Verma r…

M/S. BIOTRONIK MEDICAL DEVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2427/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…erred revenue expenditure. He observed that the genuineness of the expenditure has no-where being disputed by A.O. He relied on following decisions: " CIT Vs Citi Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd. (201 1) 335 ITR 29 (Del) " Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd.) " JCIT Vs Modi Olivetti Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 859 (Delhi) " ACIT Vs Medicamen Biotech Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi) " Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs JCIT (2005) 3 SOT 572 (Delhi) " Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs JCIT (2005) 4 SOT 393 (Mumbai) " CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation of India (2209) 185 Taxman 296 (Delhi) " ACIT Vs Ashina Syntex Lid. (ITA…

VIKI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

…case laws of CIT vs. Berger Paints India Ltd. (No.2), 2002,254 ITR 503 Calcutta High Court where the decision of Apex Court of Kedarinath Jute Mills was followed. Similarly, the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Amarraja Bateries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 2004, 91 ITD 280 Hyderabad ITAT wherein it was held that entries in the Books of accounts do not determine the allowability or otherwise expenditure and that revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and income relatable thereto would arise for a number of years, must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it was incu…