How many judgments cite Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

174 judgments on BharatTax cite Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (27 ITR 34), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 37, Section 143(2), Section 2(14).

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 1961 Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 37 Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 254 Section 32

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefit section 10(2)(xv)relinquishment of right non-compete fee business transfer agreement section 2(31)enduring benefit slump sale going concern section 51 revenue expenditure section 40a(2)(b)

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

Total Lubricants India Ltd ( Now Known As Total Oil India P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA o

ITA 7021/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ure which is not recurring in nature. Therefore treating such expenditure as revenue in nature certainly goes against the settled principles of law by various courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of a Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd vs CIT (1995) 27 ITR 34 (SC) where it was categorically held that primary test is to see whether any enduring benefit has resulted. If this test is of no avail, test of fixed or circulating capital has to be applied. In this case, on perusal of the expenditure incurred by the assessee, it is abundantly clear that expenditure incurred by the assessee is one time expenditu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 8, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Mumbai – Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012 PAN : AAACA4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 1…

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

…h it is claimed, the assessee 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…

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

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

Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1051/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iii)

…s decision is of no avail in the cases of non- compete payments as in that case the incurring of expenses did not create any asset as against that it has been clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) that the protection fee paid by the assessee had acquired an advantage of an enduring nature which ensured for the benefit of the whole of the business. The decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court relied upon by assessee is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case the assessee paid amount for laying of cables by the electricity b…

Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1050/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iii)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the seven appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4723/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. Kuldip Singhsl. No.

Section 143(3)

…aising a loan is revenue expenditure, irrespective of the purpose or motive for which loan is obtained. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) that if expenditure is made for bringing into existence an asset or advantage for enduring benefit of the business, it is properly attributable to capital and in the nature of capital expenditure. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has incurred expenditure to get secured loans, which are an asset to the company and therefore upfr…

M/S. Agarwal'S Eye Hospital Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2279/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 32

…non compete fee for acquisition of business has also been held as capital expenditure as the same was incurred for initial outlay of the business. In coming to such a conclusion, ratios of several case laws including M/s. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT (27 ITR 34) (SC), CIT vs. M/s.Coal Shipments Ltd (82 ITR 902) (SC), Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 792 (SC), CIT vs. JK Synthetics Ltd (309 ITR 371 ) and ITAT, Delhi, Special Bench in the case of Tecumseh India (P) Ltd vs Addl. CIT (2010) 127 ITD 1/5 ITR (Trib) (150) (Delhi)(SB). The ITAT while holding the expenditure bei…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4252/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. A Circle-6(1), F- 26, Connaught Place New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafcm1533J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rachna Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…image gets imprinted in minds of customers which is not very easy to dislodge. Ld. CIT, DR supported order passed by assessing officer and also has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, reported in 27 ITR 34, and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT reported in 126 Taxmann 544. 8. On the contrary Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has been incurring similar expenses on advertisement and sales promotion in preceding as well a subsequent assessment years, which has been accepted by Department. He submitted…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…h Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs Associated • Companies Limited. 172 ITR 257 (SC) To the contrary, the Appellant distinguished above case laws from its facts and also relied on several case laws to support its claim:  Modi Spinning & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT : 200 ITR 544 (Del…

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Vatika Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2331/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Vatika Hospitality Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-20, Vs. 621A, Devika Tower, Room No. 333, 6, Nehru Tower, New E-2, Ara Centre, Delhi Jhandewalan Pan:Aaacv0695D Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. CS Agarwal, Sr. Adv

Section 271

…those judicial precedents are required to be considered. Whether expenditure is a capital or revenue expenditure is the question, which has been most contentious and vexed issue. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Assam Bengal cement company Ltd versus CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) has held that:- “In cases where the expenditure is made for the initial outlay or for extension of a business or a substantial replacement of the equipment, there is no doubt that it is capital expenditure. A capital asset of the business is either acquired or extended or substantially replaced and that outlay whatever be its source whether it…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Ramuk Scan Investment Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2763/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 143(3)

…he business. Again, it is to be seen whether the expenditure incurred was part of the fixed capital of the business or part of its circulating capital......." The Supreme Court in its turn in Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1955] 27 ITR 34 stated: "This synthesis attempted by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court truly enunciates the principles which emerge from the authorities. In cases where the expenditure is made for the 9 Ramuk Scan Inv. Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2006-07 initial outlay or for extension of a business or a substantial replacement of the equipment, there is no doubt that it…

Hindustan Ice Cold Storage Co Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 8, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.203/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Hindusthan Ice & Cold Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Kolkata Storage Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, C/O D.J.Shah & Co., Chowringhee Square, Kalyan Bhavan, Kolkata-69 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 6265 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata In Appeal No.32/Xxxii/11-12/R&T/Cir-8/Kol, Dated 07.11.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.11.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its The Return Of Income On 27.11.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,45,711/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S. 143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Revenue Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Repairs & Replacement Of Block Hindusthan Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…se are revenue expenditure for the purpose of business. For this purpose, ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- Hindusthan Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd. i) Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., [1989] 177 ITR 377; ii) Assam Bengal Cement Companies Ltd. [1955] 27 ITR 34 iii) Associated Cement Companies ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 iv) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 1(SC) v) Tea Estate P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 535 (Cal) Saravana Spt. Mills (P) Ltd. 293 ITR 201 vi) 5.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO, which we have already noted in our earlier paragraphs…

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

…n into consideration by the Court to hold that the amount paid at the commencement of the lease was the advance rent that could be amortized. At the same time, there are other rulings by the Supreme Court in (Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited Vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34, CIT vs. Panbari Tea Company Limited (1965) 57 ITR 422 and DurgaMadiraSangh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969) 72 ITR 769. In all these cases, the Court upheld the Revenue‘s contention and stated that the expenditure towards acquisition of lease amounted to "brining into existence an asset or advantage for enduring benefit of the business" and w…

Director of Ncome Tax-1 vs. M/S Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

ITA/565/2016HC Delhi28 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 194

…apital and not “rent” or W.P.(C) 8085/2014 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 17 of 22 advance rent, in Durga Das Khanna v CIT 1969 (72) ITR 796 as well as other decisions, such as Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). However, in respect of amounts clearly reserved as rent (generally 1% of the total consideration, payable annually) the payments are clearly rent and not capital. In respect of such amounts too, the petitioners were liable to deduct TDS from the payments ma…

M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 2416/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. National Textile Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), New Delhi Corporation Ltd., Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaacn2847I (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Anand, Ca Respondent By Ms. Deepika Mittal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 02/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Cit (A) Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. National Textile Vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), New Delhi Corporation Ltd., Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PAN : AAACN2847I (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Manoj Anand, CA Respondent by Ms. Deepika Mittal, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 21.07.2016 Date of pronouncement 28.09.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 02/01/2014 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, Lax…

DCIT Cir 2(1) vs. The Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd

Accordingly, the assessee is not entitled for this additional relief of Rs.1.52 crores and the appeal of Revenue is allowed on this issue

ITA 5744/MUM/2003[1998 - 99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 45(2)

…the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to allow VRS expenditure of Rs.4,18,05,537/- as revenue expenditure which was treated as capital expenditure by AO in view of Supreme Court Decision in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34, 45 and also Arvind Mills Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 422." 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition made to closing stock in respect of conversion value of flat from capital asset into stock in trade. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the l…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Infratech Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the AO,in part

ITA 4729/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4729/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT, CC-2 M/s. Gitanjali Infratech Ltd. Room No.904, Pratishtha Bhavan, 801-802, Prasad Cha…

DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S. Nariman Finvest (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

…siness or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. The expression 'capital expenditure' has been interpreted by various judgments. In Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd.v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 34 the Supreme Court deduced that, an 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 and; 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 as as…