Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd. v. JCIT

316 ITR 407High Court2009#9672 most cited

What is Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

Lease rentals paid for equipment not owned by the assessee are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Hire charges for leased equipment are deductible business expenses.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd · JCIT · 316 ITR 407 · Section 37(1) · lease rentals · revenue expenditure · hire charges · leased equipment · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 37(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143C

Issues it is cited on

section 35section 92carevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 40(a)(ia)section 194section 37(1)section 19transferprescribedcompanysection 143(3)

Judgments citing Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd. v. JCIT

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ved that lease rentals paid by an assessee in case of a finance lease isallowable as an revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. (ii) The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd [2009] 316 ITR 407 is also to the same effect. In that case, the assessee had taken certain equipments on lease for which it had paid a certain sum as deposit which was to be adjusted against the lease rentals and besides that, the assessee was also paying finance/interest charges to the owner of equipment. The entire amount of lease rentals paid during the year, w…

Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Rio Tinto India ACIT Private Ltd. Circle-19(1) 21st Floor, DLF Vs. New Delhi Building No.5 Tower A, DLF Cybercity Phase-III, Gurugram Haryana-122002 PAN:AAACR5591A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate & Ms Anshika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the fina…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2517/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय .ी महावीर िसंह, उपा45 एवं माननीय .ी मनोज कुमार अ:वाल ,लेखा सद= के सम5। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2515/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2516/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2517/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Sundaram Infotech Solutions Ltd ITO / ACIT DCIT बनाम/ (Now merged with M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd) Corporate…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2516/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय .ी महावीर िसंह, उपा45 एवं माननीय .ी मनोज कुमार अ:वाल ,लेखा सद= के सम5। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2515/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2516/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2517/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Sundaram Infotech Solutions Ltd ITO / ACIT DCIT बनाम/ (Now merged with M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd) Corporate…

M/S Sundaram Infotech Solutions Limited (Merged With Sundaram Finance Limited), Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2515/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय .ी महावीर िसंह, उपा45 एवं माननीय .ी मनोज कुमार अ:वाल ,लेखा सद= के सम5। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2515/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2516/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2517/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Sundaram Infotech Solutions Ltd ITO / ACIT DCIT बनाम/ (Now merged with M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd) Corporate…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Thought Works Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

…icle to other parties in any form, the lease rent paid by the assessee in that case (lessee) would be revenue expenditure. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd. v. JCIT reported in (2009) 316 ITR 407 (Kar.) had held that when equipments are not owned by the assessee, hire charges paid for leasing of the equipment is a revenue expenditure and is to be allowed as a deduction. As regards the CIT(A)’s directions to the A.O. to verify whether there was TDS made by the assessee while making payment for lease rentals and adding back the depreciation…

Thoughtworks Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43A

…icle to other parties in any form, the lease rent paid by the assessee in that case (lessee) would be revenue expenditure. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Banashankari Medical & Oncology Research Centre Ltd. v. JCIT reported in (2009) 316 ITR 407 (Kar.) had held that when equipments are not owned by the assessee, hire charges paid for leasing of the equipment is a revenue expenditure and is to be allowed as a deduction. As regards the CIT(A)’s directions to the A.O. to verify whether there was TDS made by the assessee while making payment for lease rentals and adding back the depreciation…

M/S Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2801/Del

ITA 2801/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Tejasvi Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)

…ture under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and not as interest by treating cost of lease assets as loan amount.” The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Banashankari Medical and Oncology Research Centre Ltd., [2009] 316 ITR 407 (Kar.). “In that case, the assessee had taken certain equipments on 8 ITA.No.376/Del./2014 & ITA.No.2801/Del./2017 M/s. NIIT Ltd., New Delhi. lease, for which, it had paid certain sum as deposit which was to be adjusted against the lease rentals and besides that, the assessee was also paying finance/interest charges to the owner of the equipments…

M/S. Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.2801/Del

ITA 376/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Tejasvi Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)

…ture under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act and not as interest by treating cost of lease assets as loan amount.” The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Banashankari Medical and Oncology Research Centre Ltd., [2009] 316 ITR 407 (Kar.). “In that case, the assessee had taken certain equipments on 8 ITA.No.376/Del./2014 & ITA.No.2801/Del./2017 M/s. NIIT Ltd., New Delhi. lease, for which, it had paid certain sum as deposit which was to be adjusted against the lease rentals and besides that, the assessee was also paying finance/interest charges to the owner of the equipments…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superior Films (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4938/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gurjit Batra and Shri S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erior films Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2004-05 dated 30.01.2009 in Appeal No. 156/2006-07. 28. Referred Judgments:- (i) Jute Corpn. Of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR- 688 (SC) (ii) N.T.P.C. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383(SC) (iii) Banashankari Medical & Onclogy vs. JCIT 316 ITR 407 (Karnataka) (iv) Essel Propack Ltd. vs. CIT 237 CTR 395 (Bom) (v) R.R.B. Consultants & Engg. Vs. DCIT 342 ITR 127 (Delhi) (vi) Vodaphone Essar Gujarat Ltd. vs. CIT 342 ITR 135 (Guj.) 29. Bharti Infratel Limited 411 ITR 403 (Delhi) 30. Hitech Outsourcing Services vs. Pr. CIT 408 ITR 129(Guj.) 31. Munjal Showla Ltd. vs. DcIT 382 ITR 555 (Delhi)…

Unique Star Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan
Section 153ASection 80I

…though jointly in the name of all the parties, but in the present case search was not conducted at all and no panchanama was drawn. The ld. AR also distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of MDLR Resorts Pvt Ltd V/s CIT and ors (2014) 316 ITR 407 (Del) by submitting that in that case there was no dispute as to conduct of search and seizure operation and assessee was subject to search, non preparation of panchanama in the name of the assessee and the documents were seized relating to the assessee and were mentioned in the annexure to the panchanama whereas in the present case no search had…