Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34Supreme Court of India1955#554 most cited

What is Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

174

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 27 ITR 34 · SC · Section 37(1) · Section 10(2)(xv) · capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · aim and object of expenditure · protection fee

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 37Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 254Section 32
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 10(2)(xv)relinquishment of rightnon-compete feebusiness transfer agreementsection 2(31)enduring benefitslump salegoing concernsection 51revenue expendituresection 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Snapdeal Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

…ade with a view to bring into an assets or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business, such expenditure is not revenue but a capital expenditure.” 7. The Ld. AO placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Assam Bengal Cement Company Ltd. vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) (ii) Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT 126 Taxman 544 (Bom) (iii) Dalmia Jain & Co. 81 ITR 754 (SC) (iv) Avery India Ltd. vs. CIT 199 ITR 745 (Cal) (v) M.K. Bros Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 86 ITR 38 (SC) & Travancore Sugar and Chemical Ltd. vs. CIT 62 ITR 566 (SC) (vi) D.F. Woodrofe and Company Ltd. vs. CIT 102 ITR 665 (Mad) (vii) CIT vs. J.K. Synthetic Ltd.…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…rcial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, West Bengal (27 ITR 34). In that case, the appellant- company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain lime-stone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor und…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited speech indicated that the word 'asset' ought not to be confined to 'something material; [(1926) AC 205 222] the asset or advantage may be of an impalpable or incalculable nature. [Assam Bengal Cement v. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC); Sitalpur Sugar v. CIT 49 ITR (SC) 160; Collins v. Joseph 7 ITR 92,99; Bradlbury v. United Glass 38 TC 369 (CA). Thus, expenditure on a scheme which increases the value of a capital asset is capital expenditure. In Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. v. CIT [177 ITR 377] it was held that the expenditure incurred for procuring an enduring benefit to th…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…4372/MUM/2005 (A.Y: 2001-02) M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited speech indicated that the word 'asset' ought not to be confined to 'something material; [(1926) AC 205 222] the asset or advantage may be of an impalpable or incalculable nature. [Assam Bengal Cement v. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC); Sitalpur Sugar v. CIT 49 ITR (SC) 160; Collins v. Joseph 7 ITR 92,99; Bradlbury v. United Glass 38 TC 369 (CA). Thus, expenditure on a scheme which increases the value of a capital asset is capital expenditure. In Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. v. CIT [177 ITR 377] it was held that the expenditure incurred for procuring an enduring benefit to th…

Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5664/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…g assets. No new asset came into existence by such repairs. In the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the test as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34, which is reproduced as under: 10 “1. Outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial replacement of equipment. 2. Expenditure may be treated as properly attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence a…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…rcial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (27 ITR 34). In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain lime-stone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor unde…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3458/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 44C

…rcial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (27 ITR 34). In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain lime-stone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor unde…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.T) - 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2006[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 145Section 195Section 195(1)Section 250Section 40Section 90(2)

…rcial sense, expenditure appears to be revenue expenditure. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (27 ITR 34). In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain lime-stone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in any lease, permit or prospecting license for l…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT (A) vs. M/S. Manipal Health Systems Pvt. Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/822/2018HC Karnataka12 Oct 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…er the payment was made once and for all or was made periodically...” 11. Admittedly, the agreement between assessee and GHMT and DSGMC was terminated and obligations under the 6 (1995) 27 ITR 34 (SC) I.T.A No. 822/2018 7 agreement were discharged. Though expenditure was incurred, no capital asset or advantage of ‘enduring benefit’ was brought in by the assessee after the terminatio…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…e No. 18 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited iii. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 566 (SC) iv. CIT v. Madras Auto Services (P.) Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) v. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ITC (27 ITR 34) (SC) vii. CIT vs B.N. Elias & Co. (P) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) viii. Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 606 (Bom.) ix. FennerWoodroffe& Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 665 (Mad.) Cases wherein it is held that treatment in the books of accounts is irrelevant for determining the tax allowability of the expense i. Kedarnath…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 32Section 37(1)

…enditure for renovating the building, reconditioning of machinery and clearing of debris. The assessee claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure. The Apex Court after referring to earlier decision in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT(1955) 27 ITR 34 found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was in the process of profit earning. Therefore, it was allowed as revenue expenditure. In the present case, the appellant has not acquired any capital asset and has not got any benefit of enduring nature by making this payment but the payment was made for smooth running of the business by facilit…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. M/S Eastern Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 548/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 32(1)

…rvice (P) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court at para 6 of its judgment observed as follows:- “6. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34. In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain limestone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor under…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirupur vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Limited, Tirupur

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2229/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 32(1)

…rvice (P) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court at para 6 of its judgment observed as follows:- “6. The test for distinguishing between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in our country was laid down by this court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34. In that case, the appellant-company had acquired from the Government of Assam lease of certain limestone quarries for a period of 20 years for the purpose of manufacture of cement. The lessee had, inter alia, agreed to pay an annual sum during the whole period of the lease as a protection fee and in consideration of that payment, the lessor under…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…ire Jute Co. Ltd - 124 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). Tea Estate (P) Ltd. - 198 ITR 535 (Cal) (viii). Nila Products - 148 ITR 99 (Bom) (ix). Bhagat Industries Corporation - 126 ITR 645 (P&H) (x). Girdhari Dass & Sons - 105 ITR 339 (All) (xi). Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. - 27 ITR 34 (SC) (xii). Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) (xiii). B and A Plantation and Industries - 242 ITR 22 (Gau) (xiv). HEDE Consultancy P Ltd. - 258 ITR 380 (Bom) Software: (xv). CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. 346 ITR 138 (Bom) 12. Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 13. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…the benefit accruing is not of a transient nature but is of such durability as to justify it being treated as a capital asset. The expression "enduring benefit" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT 27 ITR 34 to mean enduring in the way that fixed capital endures. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT -124 ITR 1, there may be cases where expenses, even, if resulting in the advantage of an enduring benefit, may be properly chargeable to revenue account if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's t…

Angalakshmi Spinning Mill, Coimbatore vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115ISection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 80I

…ent almost after four years at the maximum”. We find that the Tribunal while adjudicating the matter has also taken into consideration various case laws decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India including Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 27 ITR 34 (SC); Empire Jute Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 124 ITR 1 (SC); Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported as 177 ITR 377 (SC); and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd., in ITA No. 963/Mds/2011 for AY. 2006-07 dated 23-08-2011. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal after discussing the facts of the case and…

Allen Career Institute, Kota vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the Grounds No

ITA 54/JPR/2017[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2012-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 246/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e man hours. Hence, the telecommunication expenses enables the business operations to be carried out more efficiently. IT(TP)A No.183/Bang/2022 Page 9 of 19 ix. That reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents: a. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Limited 27 ITR 34 (SC); b. Empire Jute Co Ltd vs CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC); c. Bombay Steam Navigation Co [1953] (P) Limited v CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) 9. The learned D.R. supported the orders of the DRP and submitted that the assessee had claimed the telephone and internet charges separately. The learned D.R. also submitted that the DRP after perusal of the invoic…

Bigfoot Retail Solution Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3161/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…proposition that when expenditure is not incurred for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage of enduring nature, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Following decisions were cited:- (1) Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 27 ITR 34 (SC) (2) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) (3) Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi) (4) CIT vs. J K Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 371 (Delhi) (5) ACIT vs. M/s. GE Capital Business Process Management Services 64 taxmann.com 156 (Delhi ITAT) 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance obse…