How many judgments cite Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT?

78 judgments on BharatTax cite Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT (224 ITR 414), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB(2), Section 139, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A.

Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

224 ITR 414Supreme Court of India1997#1470 most cited

What is Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT authority for?

To determine if an expense is capital or revenue expenditure, the test focuses on whether the expenditure creates a capital asset or yields an enduring commercial advantage.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT · 224 ITR 414 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · Section 37 · Section 32 · business expenditure classification · deductibility of expenses · capital asset creation · enduring commercial advantage

Also reported as

90 Taxmann 402

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB(2)Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 14A Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefit additional depreciation revenue expenditure section 32 capital expenditure section 115jb section 37 section 139 company previous year india business

Judgments citing Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5242/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)

…ness, and was neither related to nor contingent upon the capital infusion. There is no evidence that the restructuring led to creation of a capital asset or yielded any enduring commercial advantage of the nature contemplated in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT (224 ITR 414). The Ld. CIT(A) rightly appreciated this position and allowed the deduction. We affirm the same. II. Payment to KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.1,00,37,300) – Preparation of Information Memorandum 31. KPMG India was engaged through a board-approved resolution dated 24.01.2010 for the purpose of preparing an Information Memorandum, a comprehensive doc…

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.MFAR HOTELS & RESORTS LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 13/Coch/2015 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 335/Coch/15)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 250

…h Court in the case of CIT Vs Mac Charles without considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim treating it as capital expenditure relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the case of M/s Ballimal Naval Kishore (224 ITR 414 (SC) )and M/s Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd (2931TR 201(SC) 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 4. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration, in the present cas…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CC-3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3071/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 250

…nd therefore the Ld CIT(A) ought to have held it as capital in nature". 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Navi Kishore Vs CIT reported in 224 ITR 414 (SC) in allowing the expenditure incurred towards obtaining COS and DMS as revenue expenditure". 5. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in treating the "Focus Market Scheme (FMS)" and "Focus Product Scheme (FPS)"as capital receipts, claims of which have been made in appellate stage by way of filing a letter and ign…

DCIT CC 3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3,MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: \nShri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: \nDr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)

…refore the Ld CIT(A) ought to have\nheld it as capital in nature\".\n4. \"On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in\nignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nBallimal Navi Kishore Vs CIT reported in 224 ITR 414 (SC) in allowing the\nexpenditure incurred towards obtaining COS and DMS as revenue\nexpenditure\".\n5. \"On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in\ntreating the \"Focus Market Scheme (FMS)\" and \"Focus Product Scheme\n(FPS)\"as capital receipts, claims of which have been made in appellate stage\nby way of filing a le…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CC-3(2), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT vs. AARTI DURGS LIMITED, SION (E)

ITA 3068/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri S. S. Nagar & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: \nDr. K. R. Subash &

Section 139Section 14ASection 2(24)

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.133/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. PAN : AAACW7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.66/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. PAN : AAACW7089A Appellant Resp…

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

INDIA FLYSAFE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1582/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)

…t a capital expenditure. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 338 (SC) and also in the case of Mr. Ballimal Naval Kishore vs. CIT reported in [1997] 224 ITR 414 (SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. reported in [2000] 241 ITR 566 for the proposition that the replacement of parts of existing machinery will be revenue expenditure. 3.2 With respect to Ground No.3 challenging the addition of Rs.3,41,268/- made on account…

M/S ASIAN HOTELS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/1398/2006HC Delhi09 Oct 2023

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 37

…pellant/assessee as capital expenditure. [See Empire Jute Co. Ltd. V. CIT, (1980) 4 SCC 25] (xi) The statutory authorities have failed to appreciate the correct ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414 SC. In Ballimal’s case, expenses were incurred to convert a ginning factory into a cinema theatre. In contrast, in the instant case, the appellant/assessee has incurred expenditure on repair, renovation and refurbishment of the existing hotel. The distinction in this behalf has been noticed by the Bombay High Court in PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tour…

DCIT - CC-3(2), MUMBAI vs. AARTI DRUGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2503/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Srivastav

Section 139Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 80I

…d CIT(A) ought tohave held it as capital in nature. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether theLd CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BallimalNavi Kishore Vs CIT reported in 224 ITR 414 (SC); in allowing the expenditure incurred towards obtaining COS and DMS as revenue expenditure. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether theLd CIT(A) is justified in allowing the prior period expenses of Rs. 78,572/-without appreciating the fact that such expenditure was not incurred oraccrued during the year under consi…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTERNATIONAL SEAPORTS (HALDIA) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 997/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 997/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income International Seaports (Haldia) Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Vs Pvt. Ltd. 41, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road Kanak Building 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aaaci9468D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudipto Ghosh, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Kolkata- 4/10691/2015-16, Vide Order Dt. 14/02/2018, Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13, Dated 27/03/2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Company Stating That The Expenditure Of Rs.5,21,03,578/- Made On Account Of Repairing Work Made By The Concern M/S. Portek Systems & Equipments Pte. Ltd., Singapore Was Revenue Expenditure. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Not Appreciating The Facts That The Aforesaid Repairing Work Was Not Routine Repairing Works Of The Assessee Company & It Required Technical Assistance To Bring The Ship Unloaders In A Good Condition For Future Works. Ay: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 2

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipto Ghosh, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 40

…ferred by him is tabulated as under, which was also reproduced in the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page 4 & 5:- SI. Name Findings/Ratio No. 1. Ballimal Naval Kishore vs. In New Shorrock Spinning and AY: 2012-13 International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. 10 CIT (224 ITR 414) Manufacturing Company Ltd., Chagla,C.J., it was, observed that the expression "current repairs" means expenditure on buildings, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset and which does not bring a new asset into exi…

DCIT. CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Dcit Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times Of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [Pan No. : Aacct6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s. Torque Automotive Pvt. DCIT Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [PAN No. : AACCT6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh…

ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.B Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…lding that a part of the renovation expenses incurred by the assessee on the Unit" Hotel Harsha" can be held to be current repair in nature which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore (1997) 224 ITR 414(SC)? 2. The Appellant craves leave to alter , amend or delete the above grounds of appeal or add any other grounds of appeal” 4. The assessee challenged the reopening of the case after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the revenue challenged the ITA Nos.792 & 1186/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 12 deletion of addition made by the AO on account of reno…

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITTA/67/2001HC Telangana07 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

…ppeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”). The ITAT, in its impugned order, held that the reversal by the CIT(A) of `5 lakhs addition was not justified. It relied upon the judgment in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 414 and restored the disallowance to the extent held by the Assessing Officer. 3. Counsel for the assessee-appellant argues that the reasoning of both the Assessing Officer and the ITAT is flawed because there is no indication as to why even the 50% that was allowed should be treated ITA 67/2001 Page 3 as revenue expenditure given the nat…

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2016-17 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income- Pvt. Ltd., tax, 41, Bhimenahalli, LTU, Circle-2, MN Halli Post, Bidadi, Bengaluru. Ramanagaram. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Hirali Desai, AR Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 18.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

ITA 3003/AHD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Marfatia, Shri Nirmit Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 801ASection 80I

…in deleting the addition on account of Rs.3,83,02,228/- made on account of capital, expenditure irrespective of the facts huge expenditure towards spare parts which extended the life time, relying on the decision in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishor v/s. PIT 224 ITR 414 (SC) and the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction U/S.80IA irrespective of the fact that the assessee had claimed the said deduction in view of subsequent change of…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

ITA 1534/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Marfatia, Shri Nirmit Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 801ASection 80I

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

…expansion of running business deserves to be allowed. However, the A.O. may examine the utilization of borrowed funds for renovation of building for capitalization in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore 224 ITR 414. The income of Rs.19,91,701/- was declared by the assessee during survey u/s.133A of I.T. Act as investment in assets not recorded in the books of A/c. Once the assessee has admitted the income to represent the investment in assets not recorded in the books of accounts, the income has to be assessed u/s.69 of the I.T. Act. The Department is not t…

M/S. SHUBH ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

…expansion of running business deserves to be allowed. However, the A.O. may examine the utilization of borrowed funds for renovation of building for capitalization in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore 224 ITR 414. The income of Rs.19,91,701/- was declared by the assessee during survey u/s.133A of I.T.Act as investment in assets not recorded in the books of A/c. Once the assessed has admitted the income to represent the investment in assets not recorded in the books of accounts, the income has to be assessed u/s.69 of the I.T.Act. The Department is not to…

UHDE INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3775/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Sheth, AR

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…decision in CIT v. Talathi & Panthaky Associated (P.) Ltd. (18 taxmann.com 365) (Bom) ; CIT v. Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. (ITA No. 65 of 2015) (Bom). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC), Oxford University Press (1977) 108 ITR 166 (Bom) and Vardhman Developers Ltd. (2015) 55 Taxman 370 (ITAT Mumbai). Further it is stated by him that Raj Plaza in Mumbai and Duggal Plaza in Pune are leased premises whereas the South Block is the own ITA No 3775 & 4214/Mum/2016 15 UHDE India Pvt. Ltd. premise of the assessee. Further, reliance…

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4