Bralco Metal Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax

206 ITR 477High Court1994#19907 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Bralco Metal Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 323/PUN/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 10ASection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)

…her such purpose, it cannot be said that the expenditure incurred on such visits is on account of capital outlay. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bralco Metal Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 206 ITR 477 (Bom.) and Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Ltd. 21 vs. CIT, 114 ITR 335 (Bom.). He finally submits that the Assessing Officer in the remand assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 had accepted the submission of the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case cited supra. Thus, it is submi…

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 35A

…ts wherein expenditure incurred on project feasibility report I drawing and designing were held to deductible where the same pertained to backward I forward integration of the existing operations:  Bralco Metal Industries vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 206 ITR 477 (Bom) (refer page 300 of the Paper Book)  DCIT v Assam Asbestos Ltd (2003) 263 ITR 357 (Gau) (refer page 306 of the Paper Book)  CIT v Graphite India Limited (1996) 221 ITR 420 (Cal) (refer page 311 of the Paper Book) .............................. …………………….. … 3.18 Prayer Based on the above, the Appellant prays that the said expenditure / lo…

LODHA PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lodha Properties Vs. Acit- Cc-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan/Gir No. Aabc12222K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…following judicial pronouncements: . 1. Sassocn J. David and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT[118 ITR 0261] [SC] 2. CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [91ITR 44][SC] 3. CIT V Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [053 ITR 0140] [SC] 4. Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT[206 ITR 477] 4 Lodha Properties Development Pvt. Ltd., 5. CIT Vs. GOPAL RAO EKBOTE and RAMACHANDRA RAJU P. JJ. [076 ITR 0664] [AP] 9. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and contended that expenditure so incurred was personally in nature and cannot be branded as incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of busine…

M/S. THE HINDUSTAN SEWING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and department are partly allowed

ITA 3821/MUM/2003[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1995-96 Hindoostan Mills Ltd. Dcit Cir-2(1) Sir Vithaldas Chambers Mumbai बनाम/ 16, Mumbai Samachar Vs. Marg Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaact4057F Assessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit Cir-2(1) Hindoostan Mills Ltd. Mumbai Sir Vithaldas Chambers बनाम/ 16, Mumbai Samachar Vs. Marg Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaact4057F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri N.V. Nadkarni (Ar) Shri K.K. Ved (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 21/12/2015 Hearing : 8/01/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)Section 80H

…cs in Sri Lanka. But this proposal did not materialize. It was further submitted this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by various judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 206 ITR 477. It was further submitted that this issue could be sent back to the file of the AO for determination of this issue after examination of proper facts in the light of the above said decision. 6.2. We find that facts have not been properly thrashed out by the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. Both the parties agreed fo…