Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

224 ITR 414Supreme Court of India1997#1462 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.

78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 1961 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitadditional depreciationrevenue expendituresection 32capital expendituresection 115jbsection 37section 139companyprevious yearindiabusiness

Judgments citing Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

…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 9 India Flysafe Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT 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 challengin…

M/S.Kovilakam Hotel P Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…ation expenses has brought enduring benefit to the company in the form of three star certification issued by the Tourism Department, by virtue of which it shall enjoy the advantage for in future years. Reliance is placed on 1. Ballimmal Naval Kishore vs. CIT (224 ITR 414)(SC) 2. Bony Rubber Co, (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Therefore, this is treated as capital expenditure and disallowed u/s. 37(1) in the assessment Disallowance:Rs.60,25,240/-“ 4 I.T.A. No.715/Coch/2019 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer in treating Rs.65,25,240/- as capital expenditure, the assessee preferred appea…

Lipi Specific Family Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 688/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. with Shri Himanshu Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.DR
Section 234B

…ight of the test applied for holding that expenditure as revenue in nature as elaborated in the preceding paragraph. In this connection, we find support and guidance from judgment of Hon’ble apex court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore v/s CIT reported in 224 ITR 414 wherein it was held as under: “The expression used in section 10(2)(v) is 'current repairs' and not mere 'repairs'. The same expression occurs in section 30(a)(ii) and in section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is what is the meaning of the said expression in the context of section 10(2). In New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s ca…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 468/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 466/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 465/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 422/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 421/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 420/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 419/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…owance of expenses in the nature of repairs / improvements made to lease hold rented premises treating it as revenue in nature. 4.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Anr. v CIT in 224 ITR 414 and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s.Humayun Properties Ltd 44 1TR 73, held that renovation to make halls more attractive and comfortable by way of replacement of furniture, sanitary fittings, electrical installation, etc., are only capital expenditure. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made towards c…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.4565/AHD/2007 – AY 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1529/AHD/2009 – AY 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1256/AHD/2012 – AY 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.1941/AHD/2012 – AY 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.551/AHD/2016 – AY 2009-10 1-4. A.C.I.T/DCIT 1-4. M/s FAG Bearing India Ltd., Circle-1(2), At & PO. Maneja, Vs. Baroda-390010. Baroda. PAN: AAACF 3357 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) And…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Prop., Gurgaon

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

ITA 5680/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Circle-I, Gurgaon Prop., M/S. Ashok Kumar Gupta Shuttering Store, 508/2, Near State Bank Of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon Pan :Abepg4595M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…urpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset and which does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give to the assessee a new or different advantage as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore vs. CIT (224 ITR 414). Considering the nature of business of the appellant, there remains no dispute that the shuttering material requires adequate repairs for safety reasons and the extent of repairs depends upon the intensity of its use and manner of handling. The learned counsel has filed details of expenditure incurred on repairing of shuttering material in earli…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…stood as current repairs. The guidelines for inference of “current repair” has been set out by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Volga Restaurant (2002) 253 ITR 405 (Del) after referring to judgement of Apex Court in Ballimal Nawal Kishore vs CIT (1937) 224 ITR 414 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spg and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (Bom). Current repairs has also been discussed by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 523 (Bom) j) Repair implies renewal or replacement of a part. As held in CIT vs India United Mills Ltd., 141 ITR 399 (Bom)…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…acement of GI pipes etc. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering its earlier judgement in Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. and judgement of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd 293 ITR 201 and in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore Vs. CIT 224 ITR 414 found that the assessee's claim has to be allowed u/s. 30(a) (i). The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced hereunder: "After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them, we are of the view that the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 30(a)(i) has been rightl…