Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. CIT

240 ITR 654High Court1999#20049 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, Bhopal vs. Som Distilleries Private Limited, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 289/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…expenses incurred thereon were revenue in nature (Para 7) Conclusion : Expenses incurred by the assessee on repair of existing road in its factory premises to make it conducive for use are allowable as revenue expenditure. (iv) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd Vs. CIT – 240 ITR 654 (Bom): In this case, it is held as under :- Business expenditure—Capital or revenue expenditure—Expenditure on asphalting existing Kaccha road within the factory—Is revenue expenditure.—CIT vs. Chemaux Ltd. (1994) 74 Taxman 201 (Bom) followed (Para 3) Conclusion : Expenditure incurred by the assessee on resurfacing the kaccha roads inside its fac…

Som Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. ITO-1(3), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 272/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…expenses incurred thereon were revenue in nature (Para 7) Conclusion : Expenses incurred by the assessee on repair of existing road in its factory premises to make it conducive for use are allowable as revenue expenditure. (iv) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd Vs. CIT – 240 ITR 654 (Bom): In this case, it is held as under :- Business expenditure—Capital or revenue expenditure—Expenditure on asphalting existing Kaccha road within the factory—Is revenue expenditure.—CIT vs. Chemaux Ltd. (1994) 74 Taxman 201 (Bom) followed (Para 3) Conclusion : Expenditure incurred by the assessee on resurfacing the kaccha roads inside its fac…

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 2081/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2081/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 11(2)(1), M/S Schott Glass India Pvt. Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Dynasty बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 A Wing, Andheri Kurla Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcs8583L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kumr, Dr 04.08.2020 Virtual Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2020 :

For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumr, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 30Section 31

…ue expenditure. In this connection, the assessee places reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Chemaux Ltd (74 Taxman 201) and Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (240 ITR 654) and the 22 I.T.A. No. 2081/Mum/2016 M/s Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd (346 ITR 70). Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that in case the expense of Rs. 31,62,765 incurred on repair of road is held to be capital in nature, then it is prayed that the Ass…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “बी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND 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 and Cultural Development Tax 11(1), Vs. Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari, Mumbai. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400065 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAACM7646K अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri Hari S Raheja प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by…

Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. CIT (240 ITR 654) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax