Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

145 ITR 793High Court1984#6932 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2024.

Also reported as

12 Taxmann 178

Sections most often in play

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234BSection 35DSection 37Section 40(a)(i)Section 80-O

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)revenue expenditurecommissioner (appeals)income from other sourcestransfersection 143companyindiabusinessinterestsection 14total income

Judgments citing Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…or improving the efficiency of the organization and all the said expenses are of a revenue nature, the same should be allowed as deduction while computing the total income. The assessee also relied on the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (145 ITR 793) and CIT v. General Insurance Corporation of India (254 ITR 203). 69. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the expenditure had been incurred not for introduction of any capital but for the purpose of reduction of share capital, by relying on the deci…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…or improving the efficiency of the organization and all the said expenses are of a revenue nature, the same should be allowed as deduction while computing the total income. The assessee also relied on the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (145 ITR 793) and CIT v. General Insurance Corporation of India (254 ITR 203). 69. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the expenditure had been incurred not for introduction of any capital but for the purpose of reduction of share capital, by relying on the deci…

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…ble High Court has held as under: “…..The assessee was carrying on business. He obtained a tenancy intending to use the said premises for the purpose of carrying on his business. Thus, in view of the decision in Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 777 (Bom.), he intended the premises to be a part of the structure of his profit-making apparatus. There was nothing to suggest that he intended to trade in the tenancy. The tenancy was, therefore, a capital asset. Accordingly, the compensation received by the assessee was a receipt of a capital nature...." The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…nt that judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sessa Goa Ltd. stands overruled in view of the fact that, Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. Vs. CIT 145 ITR 793 (BOM) wherein the expenses relating to issue of bonus shares was treated as revenue expenditure. In the case of Sessa Goa Ltd., the earlier decision of Bombay High Court was overruled by the same High Court. However, subsequent to the Sessa Goa judgment of Bombay High Court which was delivered in the Month of August, 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…nt that judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sessa Goa Ltd. stands overruled in view of the fact that, Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. Vs. CIT 145 ITR 793 (BOM) wherein the expenses relating to issue of bonus shares was treated as revenue expenditure. In the case of Sessa Goa Ltd., the earlier decision of Bombay High Court was overruled by the same High Court. However, subsequent to the Sessa Goa judgment of Bombay High Court which was delivered in the Month of August, 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

KULODAY TECHNOPACK P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Kuloday Technopack Private ITO-8(2)(2), Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 25, Sona Industrial Estate, v. Parsi Panchayat Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400020 400069. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACK3957H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee b…

M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

ITA 5286/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248 and 5249/Del/2012 Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge G, Block Commercial Co. Ltd., Complex, Sector-20, Toll Plaza, DND NOIDA. Flyway, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 NOIDA Toll Bridge Co. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltd., G, Block Commercial Toll Plaza, DND Flyway, Complex, Sector-20, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA NOIDA. PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5249/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248 and 5249/Del/2012 Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge G, Block Commercial Co. Ltd., Complex, Sector-20, Toll Plaza, DND NOIDA. Flyway, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 NOIDA Toll Bridge Co. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltd., G, Block Commercial Toll Plaza, DND Flyway, Complex, Sector-20, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA NOIDA. PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5248/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248 and 5249/Del/2012 Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge G, Block Commercial Co. Ltd., Complex, Sector-20, Toll Plaza, DND NOIDA. Flyway, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 NOIDA Toll Bridge Co. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltd., G, Block Commercial Toll Plaza, DND Flyway, Complex, Sector-20, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA NOIDA. PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5247/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248 and 5249/Del/2012 Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge G, Block Commercial Co. Ltd., Complex, Sector-20, Toll Plaza, DND NOIDA. Flyway, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 NOIDA Toll Bridge Co. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltd., G, Block Commercial Toll Plaza, DND Flyway, Complex, Sector-20, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA NOIDA. PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5246/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.5246, 5247, 5248 and 5249/Del/2012 Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. NOIDA Toll Bridge G, Block Commercial Co. Ltd., Complex, Sector-20, Toll Plaza, DND NOIDA. Flyway, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 NOIDA Toll Bridge Co. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltd., G, Block Commercial Toll Plaza, DND Flyway, Complex, Sector-20, Opp. Sec-15A, NOIDA NOIDA. PAN: AAACN 3498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue b…

KHODAY ESHWARSA & SONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…a sum Rs.6.29 crores as compensation which was mentioned in Schedule 13 of its audited account statements, and had claimed it as capital receipt relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. V. CIT [81 ITR 777]. As per the CIT, AO while completing the assessment had not applied his mind whether the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd (supra) was applicable to the facts before him. In reply to the above notice, assessee mentioned that there was an agreement dt.22.09.2006 entered by one M/s. Daatha Builders and s…

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN RAYON AND INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3703/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…of CAF, printing of rights register, processing charges, preparation of basis of allotment, printing etc.-amounting to Rs.3,00, 64, 318/- should be allowed as revenue expenditure as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Bombay Burmah(145 ITR 793). The AO, after considering the submission of the assessee ,held that expenses on the right issue was not in the normal course of business, that it had not debited the same to the P&L account.Finally, he rejected the claim made by the assessee. 15.1.During the appellate proceedings the FAA held that similar additions had been deleted by his prede…

ADDL CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 3634/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri E. Sankaran-CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

…of CAF, printing of rights register, processing charges, preparation of basis of allotment, printing etc.-amounting to Rs.3,00, 64, 318/- should be allowed as revenue expenditure as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Bombay Burmah(145 ITR 793). The AO, after considering the submission of the assessee ,held that expenses on the right issue was not in the normal course of business, that it had not debited the same to the P&L account.Finally, he rejected the claim made by the assessee. 15.1.During the appellate proceedings the FAA held that similar additions had been deleted by his prede…

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…9 ITR 681 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. R.B. Jairam Valji, 35 ITR 48 (SC). 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008 Page 12 of 31 (v) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., 81 ITR 777 (Bom.) & (vi) Kettle Well Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 53 ITR 261 (SC).” 13. The question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the amount received by the appellant pursuant to the agreement dated 30th October, 2000, between the DCM and the appellant is to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. 14. It is trite th…

(M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-I)

ITA/183/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…9 ITR 681 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. R.B. Jairam Valji, 35 ITR 48 (SC). 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008 Page 12 of 31 (v) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., 81 ITR 777 (Bom.) & (vi) Kettle Well Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 53 ITR 261 (SC).” 13. The question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the amount received by the appellant pursuant to the agreement dated 30th October, 2000, between the DCM and the appellant is to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. 14. It is trite th…

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA

C.A. No.-004422-004422 - 2001Supreme Court25 Sept 2006
For Respondent: M/s General Insurance Corporation
Section 143Section 260Section 81

…d second relating to issue of bonus shares. In respect of the first category of expenditure it was held that the same was not allowable in terms of the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, vs. CIT, (1984) 145 ITR 793 and Richardson Hindustan Limited http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7 Vs. CIT, (1988)169 ITR 516. The expenditure falling under second category was allowed as revenue expenditure being directly covered by the decision in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation’s case (supra). The revenue being aggrieved challenged…