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

Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Rpg Life Science Ltd (Earlier Known As Summit Securities Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6714/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 1999-00

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6714/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S R P G Life Sciences Ltd (Earlier Known As Summit Tax 7(2), Vs. Securities Ltd.), Room No.624, 6Th Floor, Ceat Mahal, 463, Aayakar Bhavan, Dr.Annie Besant Road, M K Road, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400025 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…y the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Essel Propack Ltd (supra). Before us, the assessee also placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical works Co. Ltd (177 ITR 377); Assam Bengal Cement Vs. CIT (27 ITR 34 @ 46), M.K. Bros Vs. CIT (86 ITR 38). Thus, we notice that the assessee has made a claim on the basis of certain judicial pronouncements and the same was not acceptable to the AO. Thus, the impugned issue becomes debatable issue. Accordingly, we are of the view that, merely because the claim of the assessee was not acceptable to the tax authorities…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 $~5 to 8 &16 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.01.2015 Pronounced on: 30.01.2015 + ITA 614/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 619/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 661/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 710/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ....…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA-614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 $~5 to 8 &16 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.01.2015 Pronounced on: 30.01.2015 + ITA 614/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 619/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 661/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 710/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ....…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Krishan Kumar

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA - 50 / 2000HC Delhi02 Dec 2014

…every year. It was held that since the annual payment was for an indefinite period of time unrelated to the capital value of the assets or a fixed purchase consideration, the expenses were revenue in nature. In Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC), it was held that if the expenditure is not for the purpose of bringing in existence of any asset or advantage but for running of business or working for it to produce profit, it would be a revenue expenditure. Similarly, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 371 (Delhi), this Court was of the view that th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Krishan Kumar

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/50/2000HC Delhi02 Dec 2014

…every year. It was held that since the annual payment was for an indefinite period of time unrelated to the capital value of the assets or a fixed purchase consideration, the expenses were revenue in nature. In Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC), it was held that if the expenditure is not for the purpose of bringing in existence of any asset or advantage but for running of business or working for it to produce profit, it would be a revenue expenditure. Similarly, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 371 (Delhi), this Court was of the view that th…

CIT vs. M/S Triveni Oil Field Services Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 142 / 2002HC Delhi18 Sept 2014
Section 260A

…operations or enabling the management to conduct of business more efficiently, it would amount to „revenue expenditure‟, even though the advantage may be of indefinite future. Earlier in Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited versus CIT, West Bengal, (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) it was observed that if the expenditure is not for the purpose of bringing into existence any asset or advantage, but for running of business or working with it to produce profits, it would be „revenue expenditure‟. Reference in the said decision was made to Dixon, J. opinion in Sun Newspapers Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Triveni Oil Field Services Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/142/2002HC Delhi18 Sept 2014
Section 260A

…operations or enabling the management to conduct of business more efficiently, it would amount to „revenue expenditure‟, even though the advantage may be of indefinite future. Earlier in Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited versus CIT, West Bengal, (1955) 27 ITR 34 (SC) it was observed that if the expenditure is not for the purpose of bringing into existence any asset or advantage, but for running of business or working with it to produce profits, it would be „revenue expenditure‟. Reference in the said decision was made to Dixon, J. opinion in Sun Newspapers Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA/1328/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Limited

ITA/996/2011HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Telenet Ltd

ITA/1333/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

CIT vs. Bhartihexacom Ltd

ITA/114/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

CIT vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

ITA/177/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1328 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1679 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…ITA 1336/2010 & conn. cases. Page 1 of 46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1336/2010 Reserved on: 13th August, 2013 % Date of Decision: 19th December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel versus BHARTI HEXACOM LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1679/2010…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…+ % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V ITA 1679/2010 Reserved on: 13"' August, 2013 Date of Decision: |1+^December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: MrAjay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 1680/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel Versus BHARTI CELLULAR LTD Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vohra, Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Kaanan Kapur, Advocates ITA 114/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Senior Sta…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 957 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 30.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 05.11.2012 + ITA 956/2011 AND ITA 957/2011 M/S. GAIL INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sh. Amit Sachdeva and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma and Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RA…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 956 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 30.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 05.11.2012 + ITA 956/2011 AND ITA 957/2011 M/S. GAIL INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sh. Amit Sachdeva and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma and Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RA…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/957/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 30.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 05.11.2012 + ITA 956/2011 AND ITA 957/2011 M/S. GAIL INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sh. Amit Sachdeva and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma and Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RA…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/956/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 30.10.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 05.11.2012 + ITA 956/2011 AND ITA 957/2011 M/S. GAIL INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Sh. Amit Sachdeva and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma and Sh. Puneet Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RA…