What is Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred in respect of abandoned cell towers is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially when no new business was being set up by the assessee.

How many judgments cite Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT?

60 judgments on BharatTax cite Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT (380 ITR 116), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 32(1)(iia), Section 32AC, Section 37, Section 40A(9), Section 10B(8), Section 194.

Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT (380 ITR 116)

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

…. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd.…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

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

…. DCIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 105 TTJ 1002 (Amritsar – Trib) iv. Alembic ChemicalWorks Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 77 ITR 377 (SC) v. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) vi. CIT Vs. BPL Systems and Projects Ltd. 227 ITR 779 (Ker) vii. CIT Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd.…

Deputy Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1289/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri H.P MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 14A

…fit in capital field but to carry on the existing business more efficiently and profitably, the irresistible conclusion which follows is that such expenditure was allowable as business expenditure. [see CIT vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1985) 49 CTR (AP) 269 : (1986) 157 ITR 282 (AP) and CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 317 (Mad)]. Therefore, this question has also to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” Thus, in view of the facts of the present case and the various decisions discussed above, we are of the considered view, consultancy charges paid by assessee to Mckinsey &…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1033/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri H.P MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 14A

…fit in capital field but to carry on the existing business more efficiently and profitably, the irresistible conclusion which follows is that such expenditure was allowable as business expenditure. [see CIT vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1985) 49 CTR (AP) 269 : (1986) 157 ITR 282 (AP) and CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 317 (Mad)]. Therefore, this question has also to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” Thus, in view of the facts of the present case and the various decisions discussed above, we are of the considered view, consultancy charges paid by assessee to Mckinsey &…

India Index Services & Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…is contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision (i) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Madras High Court), (iii) CIT Vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 282, (iv) DCIT Vs. Reddiff.com India Ltd. 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), (v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 112 TTJ 94 (Chandigarh) & CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(1990) 182 ITR 62. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.…

M/S. Zambad Mount View Project Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1856/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(2)

…Kumar Co. Ltd., 259 ITR 114 (Raj.); iv. iv. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 97 taxmann.com 347 (Madras); v. Binani Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta); vi. M/s. Pik Pen Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 6847/Mum/2008 for assessment year 2005-06 decided on 28-01-2010; 28-01-2010; vii. Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 1115/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 07-09-2018. 4. On the other hand Shri Pank…

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 04/10/2018

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(2)

…ould be allowed as deduction. The ld. AR in support of his claim relied on various orders as detailed below: -(2012) 26 TM.Com.15 (JAR) CIT V/s. TATA ROBINS FRASER LTD. (pg 14 to 18) -(2016) 76 TM.Com.77 (Bom) CIT V/s. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. (Pg 19 to 21) -(2016) 380 ITR 116 (CAL) – BENANI CEMENT LTD (Pg 22 to 25) Sabri Chemicals Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 13. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the claim of the assessee for bad debts of Rs.2,00,000/- was denied by…

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 1147/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37

…he CIT(A) hold the same to be in the nature of capital loss. We find that this identical claim represent written down value of assessee’s left over assets in its abandoned project in Libya. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in Binani Cement Ltd. 2016 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta) has concluded that such a loss emanating from abundant projects amounts to revenue claim u/s 37 of the Act since incurred wholly and exclusively during the course of relevant business. Their lordship, earlier judgment in CIT vs Alom Industries Ltd. in ITA 724 of 2004 decided on 17.08.2015, Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs CIT (2011) 33…

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 1146/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37

…he CIT(A) hold the same to be in the nature of capital loss. We find that this identical claim represent written down value of assessee’s left over assets in its abandoned project in Libya. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in Binani Cement Ltd. 2016 380 ITR 116 (Calcutta) has concluded that such a loss emanating from abundant projects amounts to revenue claim u/s 37 of the Act since incurred wholly and exclusively during the course of relevant business. Their lordship, earlier judgment in CIT vs Alom Industries Ltd. in ITA 724 of 2004 decided on 17.08.2015, Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs CIT (2011) 33…

Aditya Birla Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1115/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1115/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Assistant Commissioner Of C-1, Aditya Birla Centre Income Tax -8(1) बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcb-7067-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…existing unit ought to be closed. 14. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:— (i) Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 18/[2009] 185 Taxman 277 (Delhi) (ii) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116/[2015] 233 Taxman 340/60 taxmann.com 384 (Cal.) (iii) CIT v. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. [2012] 211 Taxman 257/26 taxmann.com 15 (Jharkhand) (iv) Asia Power Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 370 ITR 257/[2014] 49 taxmann.com 428/226 Taxman 136 (Mag.) (Kar.), and (v) Thiruvengadam Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [T.C.(A) No. 583 of 2007, 11 Ad…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

Section 28

…profitability not removed from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of leg…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of leg…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directed to treat the expenditure on account of leg…

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3629/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5Th Floor 201, Vastushilp Annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above Hdfc Bank, Gamadia Colony Rd. Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabct 2852 P Co.Sno./13&14/Mum/2017 वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 ) (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Dcit-5(3)(2) Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-Dr Assessee By: D.V. Lakhani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M. लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 22.10.2013 & 31.03.2015 Of The Cit(A),The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assesse Have Filed Appeals/Cross Objections For The Above Mentioned Two Years. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Software.

For Appellant: D.V. Lakhani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37

…for deduction of the same. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this count and thus delete the impugned addition of Rs.83,20,841/-. Ground No 1 is thereby allowed.” Here,we would also like to refer to the case of Binani Cement Ltd.(380 ITR 116)of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.Facts of the case are that the FAA found that the assessee claimed deduction of the expenditure on a project which had been abandoned when it was found to be unviable, that the expenditure was not claimed or allowed earlier as business expenditure because it was of capital nature entitled to depreciation after c…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…erefore, the expenditure partook the character of revenue expenditure which is allowable deduction. 12. The question is, therefore answered in the negative and against the revenue.” Similarly we also relied in the case of Benani Cement Ltd vs. CIT reported in 380 ITR 116 where the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under : “Expenditure made for construction/acquisition of new facility subsequently abandoned at the work-in- progress stage was allowable as incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business as covered by the decision in Graphite India Ltd. The issue whether such expenditure…

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…erefore, the expenditure partook the character of revenue expenditure which is allowable deduction. 12. The question is, therefore answered in the negative and against the revenue.” Similarly we also relied in the case of Benani Cement Ltd vs. CIT reported in 380 ITR 116 where the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under : “Expenditure made for construction/acquisition of new facility subsequently abandoned at the work-in- progress stage was allowable as incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business as covered by the decision in Graphite India Ltd. The issue whether such expenditure…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…erefore, the expenditure partook the character of revenue expenditure which is allowable deduction. 12. The question is, therefore answered in the negative and against the revenue.” Similarly we also relied in the case of Benani Cement Ltd vs. CIT reported in 380 ITR 116 where the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under : “Expenditure made for construction/acquisition of new facility subsequently abandoned at the work-in- progress stage was allowable as incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business as covered by the decision in Graphite India Ltd. The issue whether such expenditure…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…t. Hence the assessee had no other option but to write off the remaining sum of Rs. 2,01,50,000/- and claim the same as deduction. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Cement Ltd vs CIT reported in (2016) 380 ITR 116 (Cal) in support of his contention. He argued that the advance was made during the course of business of the assessee and hence the same has to be construed as a regular business loss. In response to this, the Learned DR argued that this is a joint venture investment made by the assessee and the income had it been derived would have been taxed in…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…t. Hence the assessee had no other option but to write off the remaining sum of Rs. 2,01,50,000/- and claim the same as deduction. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Cement Ltd vs CIT reported in (2016) 380 ITR 116 (Cal) in support of his contention. He argued that the advance was made during the course of business of the assessee and hence the same has to be construed as a regular business loss. In response to this, the Learned DR argued that this is a joint venture investment made by the assessee and the income had it been derived would have been taxed in…

M/S Bla Coke Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, --IV, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT u/s 263 of the Act also submitted before us judicial pronouncements in support of the contention of capital work in progress wherein it was held that loss on abandonment of capital assets are to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Binani Cement Ltd. Vs CIT 380 ITR 116, CIT vs Seraikella glass Works (P)Ltd 157 ITR 584 (Patna),Addl. CIT vs Dyer’s Stone Lime Co.(P)Ltd. 136 ITR 8 (Del) and CIT vs Bharat Aluminium Co. Limited 292 ITR 600 (Delhi). The learned DR relied on the order of CIT. 8. After considering the rival submissions we are of the view that order of the CIT us/ 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. The…

Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT

What is Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Binani Cements Ltd. v. CIT

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

Deputy Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Limited, Pune

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Dy. CIT, Circle 10, Pune

India Index Services & Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

M/S. Zambad Mount View Project Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata

Aditya Birla Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

M/S Bla Coke Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, --IV, Kolkata