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

DCIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharat Light and Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 5263/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriZahid Parvez, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 37

…efore, capital expenditure is akin to the concept of securing some tangible or intangible property or corporeal or incorporeal right to that they can be of lasting or enduring benefit to the enterprise. Similarly, in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC), it was held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring or for bringing into existence an asset or advantage of enduring nature of the business is properly attributable to capital and is capital in nature. However, to determine the nature of expenditure, all the facts of a particular case have to be analyzed. 4.5.5. Perusal of various submiss…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

…TA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 relates to corporate brand image which is capital expenditure and for coming to this conclusion, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and CIT v/s Jeoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd., [2009] 315 ITR 134. This has been confirmed by the DRP also. 26. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has been incurring these expenses every year which has been allowed by the department and, secondly, the total advertisement and promotion expenses is only 3.28%…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (As Successor in Business of Erstwhile Ing Vysya Bank Limited), Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 748/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…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 ITA Nos.748, 733/Bang/2011 Page 16 of 21 advantage consis…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S the Vysya Bank Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee remanded by the High Court for fresh consideration are allowed

ITA 733/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Singh Meena, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…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 ITA Nos.748, 733/Bang/2011 Page 16 of 21 advantage consis…

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

…1 ITA No. 5827/Del/2017, 569 & 571/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] DCIT vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi NH-8, New Delhi AAACH0765L APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ACIT vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi NH-8, New Delhi AAACH0765L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepes…

Hitachi Metglas (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…mbay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) · DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) · • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) · • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) · • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) · • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) · Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) · • M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 86 ITR 38 (SC) · • Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT: 62 ITR 566 (SC) · • CIT v. B.N. Elias & Co. (P.) Ltd.: 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) · • CIT v. Hindustan General Electric Corpn. Ltd.: 81 ITR 2…

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

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2228/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 07.07.2021
Section 143(3)

…vice (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 unde…

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

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 07.07.2021
Section 143(3)

…vice (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 unde…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4024/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4027/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT-CC-7(1) M/s Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Kalpatru Court 653, Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Dr. Chotiram Gidwani Marg Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Chembur, Mumbai – 400 074 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/S Ncr Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/254/2020HC Karnataka26 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 37

…rchitect, cabling work for networking of computers in connection with setting up of office. The test for distinguishing capital expenditure and revenue expenditure was laid down by the Supreme Court in 'ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD., VS. CIT', (1955) 27 ITR 34, which laid down the text, which reads as under: 1. Outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a 9 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…

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 891/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…velling expenses, etc -, are revenue in nature, however, the counsel for the appellant has contended that since there was enduring benefit from the expenditure. be said expenditure is capital in nature. Reliance was placed upon Assam Bengal Cement v- CIT[1955)27 ITR 34 (sc) on the meaning of capital expenditure and on Taparia Toots Ltd v. Joint CIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bom ) and CIT v. Kanyakumari Dist.Co- op.Spg.Mills Ltd.(2003) 264 ITR 684 for the same purpose. 6. The counsel for the respondent-assessee has however placed reliance upon Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (sc),…

M/S Green Pearl Electronics P Ltd, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 890/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A.Nos.890 & 891/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/S.Green Pearl Electronics P.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 211/1, East Potheri Village Street, Income Tax, Kattankulathur, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kanchipuram-603 203. Chennai-34. Pan: Aancs 0865M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CIT

…velling expenses, etc -, are revenue in nature, however, the counsel for the appellant has contended that since there was enduring benefit from the expenditure. be said expenditure is capital in nature. Reliance was placed upon Assam Bengal Cement v- CIT[1955)27 ITR 34 (sc) on the meaning of capital expenditure and on Taparia Toots Ltd v. Joint CIT [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bom ) and CIT v. Kanyakumari Dist.Co- op.Spg.Mills Ltd.(2003) 264 ITR 684 for the same purpose. 6. The counsel for the respondent-assessee has however placed reliance upon Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (sc),…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…i Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…i Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…i Olivetti Ltd. 3 SOT 22 (Del – Trib) ii. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 682 (Kar) iii. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a paymen…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a paymen…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…nditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature. The ld AO based on the above direction disallowed the above sum. 12. On appeal, ld CIT(A) further strengthened views of the ld AO and Addl. CIT by referring to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 27 ITR 34 and of Hon. Punjab High court in 35 ITR 576. He further held that manufacturing agreement could be terminated only after three years of operation after giving a 12 months‘ advance notice. Thus, there is no doubt that the advantage flowing to assessee is for a considerably long time and resulting in enduring benefit. He also held that it is a paymen…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Ncr Corporation Pvt Ltd

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/242/2011HC Karnataka16 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…cabling work for networking of computers in connection with setting up of office. The test for distinguishing capital expenditure and revenue expenditure was laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO. LTD., VS. 11 CIT’, (1955) 27 ITR 34, which laid down the text, which reads as under: 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…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…unning the business of working it with a view to produce the profits, It is revenue expenditure. This view has been confirmed by several decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Court of the law. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1995] 27 ITR 34 (SC)/CIT vs. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 253 (Guj./Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC)/CIT Vs Menora Hosiery Works (P) Ltd. [1977] 109 ITR 714 (Bom.)/Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 28 (Bom.)/CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam…