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#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.

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 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

DCIT, Madurai vs. Pandyan Hotels Limited, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kurian Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: 02.08.2017

Section 142ASection 143(3)

…s permitted under s. 10(2)(v) is a deduction where the expenditure is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure." (emphasis, supplied) The afore-stated test was endorsed and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 414 (SC), reproducing it, noting that the same had in fact been followed by the majority of the High Courts in India, and was, rather, in agreement with the view expressed earlier as well, as in CIT v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 21 (Patna) and CIT v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. [1952] 21 ITR 191 (Mad). The Hon'ble Court had, once again, an…

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)

…13 A Y 2009-10 having regard to the documents filed by the Appellant, it seems not relevant to physically verify the parties. The AO relied on several case laws to substantiate his viewpoint: • Ballimal Naval Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubbe…

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, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 275/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

…the building was in the nature of electrical repairing work of office building as well as residential accommodation used by the employees of the company and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballimai Naval Kishore –vs.- CIT [224 ITR 414 (SC)] deleted the disallowance. He also referred to the decision of his predecessor in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2006-07 on the very same issue and followed the same. We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2007-08 in ITA No. 693/KOL/2012 and ITA No. 554/KOL/2012 for assessment ye…

M/S. Ripe Component Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 163/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Ripe Component Technologies Pvt. Ltd., B-8/14, Tax, Circle- 15(1), C.R. First Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aadcr2107F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.K. Chaturvedi, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 19/07/2011 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred On Facts In Law In Making An Addition Of Rs.31,97,677/- On Account Of Depreciation Claimed On Temporary Erections & Allowing Only Rs.3,19,767/- As Depreciation. 2. The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground/Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Might Require Or Justify Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

…ase and also started business during the year under consideration. A sum of Rs.23.90 lac was incurred on complete renovation of such premises as it is apparent from the details placed on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore vs. CIT 1997 224 ITR 414 (SC) has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on total renovation of cinema theatre by installing new machinery, new furniture, new sanitary fitting and new electrical installation besides extensive repair of structure of building, to be capital expenditure and not allowable as current repairs. This judgment indicates that any capit…

Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8488/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh (AR)For Respondent: S/Shri A.G. Bhatkar-(CIT-DR) and K.V. Vispute- (DR)

Section 254(1)Section 43(6)

…ultant 8488+5Godrej & Boyce totally created the new intangible asset which is totally different from earlier one. Hence this process of renewal or renovation, created a new intangible asset. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baliwala Nand Kishore vs. CIT 224 ITR 414 held that renewal or renovation of asset is in capital nature. The appellant had relied on the decision of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT - 124 ITR 1 and Alembic-Chemical Works Ltd. vs. CIT - 177 ITR 377. Depreciation of the intangible asset in Income-tax Act was not in existence. This came into operation from the year 1998. Moreover those two deci…

The Pr. Commissionr of Income Tax-4 vs. Godavari Shilpkala Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/378/2016HC Delhi25 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…ITA No. 378/2016 Page 1 of 2 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. + ITA 378/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate. versus GODAVARI SHILPKALA LTD. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 25.07.2016 1. This appeal by the Revenue is against the order dated 2nd November 2015 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.5634/Del/20…

Asian Advertising, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm in ITA N0

ITA 2349/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Asian Advertising, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. V. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafa1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 31Section 32Section 37

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2349/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s Asian Advertising, ITO – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chambers, Mumbai. v. 66, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAAFA1477D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant J. Vora Revenue by : Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 19-01-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronounce…

Sri Vasudeva Textiles Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1689/CHNY/2000[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1689/Mds/2000 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1995-96 M/S Sri Vasudeva Textiles Limited, The Joint Commissioner Of 2/167, Ellappalayam Post, V. Income Tax, Pogalur, Annur Via Special Range – I, Coimbatore – 641 697. Coimbatore – 18. Pan : Cq - 9240 (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. Madhavan, JCIT

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

…ture or current repair. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals), according to the Ld. D.R., has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in CIT v. Mir Mohammed Ali (53 ITR 165) and in CIT v. Ballimal Naval Kishore (224 ITR 414). 16. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The replacement of ring frames, draw frames and carding machine was subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201 and in CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mill…

Marubeni-Itochu Steel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1716/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT,DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I-1: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM Assessment Year: 2007-08 Marubeni-Itochu Steel Vs. DCIT, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-6(1), 806-814, 8th Floor, New Delhi. Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. PAN: AAECM6453G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Shri Lalit Attal, Shri Amit Panwar, Ms Priya Kohli & Shri Sumit Arora, CAs Department By : Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT,DR Shri Deepak Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: T…

Maharashtra State Film, State & Cultural Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8604/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8604/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S Maharashtra State Film बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Stage & Cultural Development Tax 11(1), Vs. Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Mumbai. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 11Section 43BSection 4A

…of enduring nature and hence the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the view taken by the AO by following the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shri Mangayarkarsasi Milll P Ltd V/s (315 ITR 114 (SC) and Ballimal Naval Kishore and Another (224 ITR 414 (SC). 18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessee is holding an area of 512 acres of land and it is submitted that there is huge stretch of road therein. We notice that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the assessee has built any new road. According to the assessee, it…

M/S Comfort Living Hotels P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITA/67/2001HC Delhi10 Mar 2014

…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 2014:DHC:1317-DB ITA 67/2001 Page 3 as revenue expendit…

Surinder Madan

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/364/2013HC Delhi22 Aug 2013

Section 260ASection 30

…appropriate to refer to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ballimal Naval Kishore & 2013:DHC:4132-DB ITA 364/2013 Page 7 of 14 Anr. vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC). In this case referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1956) 130 ITR 338 (Bom.), it was observed as under: “2. 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) o…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Telecom Finance (India) Ltd

ITA - 551 / 2010HC Delhi12 Sept 2012

…e nature of capital expenditure. It was argued that Explanation 1 to section 32 was applicable, and reliance was placed 2012:DHC:5669-DB ITA-551 & 738/2010 Page 9 on the decision in Ballimal Nawal Kishore and Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1997] 224 ITR 414 (SC). It was contended that the expenditure incurred was not on repairs but was in fact, for a total renovation of the leased property, and therefore expenditure was to be capitalized. 14. On this issue, the CIT(A)’s finding and reasoning for treating the amount of ` 26,21,049/- as revenue expenditure, which was affirmed by the Tribunal,…

M/s. Bharat Gears Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central I

ITA-14/2005HC Delhi30 Jun 2011

…Page 12 of 25 test was not the same as the test for revenue expenditure but different therefrom. The Court took note of its earlier judgment in Balliml Naval Kishore and another v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1997) 2 SCC 449 = 224 ITR 414 wherein the test formulated by Chagla, C.J., in the case of New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1956] 30 ITR 338 (Bom.) was approved. The Bombay High Court in the said judgment had laid down the following test:- “The simple test that must be constantly borne in mind is that as a result of the expenditure which is claimed as…

CIT vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

ITA/1163/2010HC Delhi13 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 260A

…NFM –Rs.6,34,392/- (o) Construction of sewerage lane at NSM – Rs.4,77,033/- (p) Electrical expenses on market yard – Rs.6,17,040/-” 4. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the CIT(A) has placed reliance on Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC), SENAPATHY Synams Insulations (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 248 ITR 656 (Kar.) and CIT v. Norht Dhemo Coal Co. Ltd., (1977) 106 ITR 592 (Cal.). ITA No.1163/2010 Page 5 of 6 5. The tribunal, after referring to the submissions, has held as f…

CIT vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

ITA - 1163 / 2010HC Delhi13 Sept 2010

Section 260A

…NFM –Rs.6,34,392/- (o) Construction of sewerage lane at NSM – Rs.4,77,033/- (p) Electrical expenses on market yard – Rs.6,17,040/-” 4. To arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the CIT(A) has placed reliance on Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 414 (SC), SENAPATHY Synams Insulations (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 248 ITR 656 (Kar.) and CIT v. Norht Dhemo Coal Co. Ltd., (1977) 106 ITR 592 (Cal.). 2010:DHC:4468-DB 5. The tribunal, after referring to the submissions, has held as follows:- “10. Learned counsel for the assessee in reply contends that the assessee incurs expenditure under v…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Hi Line Pens P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1202/2006HC Delhi15 Sept 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Rakesh Gupta, Ms PoonamAhuja

Section 30Section 31Section 32

…cement of the entire machine is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The learned counsel for the revenue also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Ballimal Naval Kishore and Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax: 224 ITR 414. This decision is also noted in Saravana Spinning Mills P.Ltd. (supra). The decision in Ballimal Naval Kishore approved the test formulated by Chagla, CJ in the case of New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT : (1956) 30 ITR 338 (Bombay) as to when could an expenditure be said to have been incurred on „current repairs‟. In…