Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT

253 ITR 445Supreme Court of India2002#12500 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on non-compete feenon-compete feemat creditsection 32(1)(ii)section 32(1)enduring benefitsection 36(1)(iii)section 32section 36(1)(va)revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)

Judgments citing Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As "Jrg Securities Ltd"), Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…of expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed rights issue of Rs.1,18,19,512, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Kodak India Limited (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC). However, directed the AO to delete the addition on account of audit fees of Rs.41 lakh. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on account of non- compete fee paid relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution, cited supra. However, the CIT(A) granted relief in re…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…of expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed rights issue of Rs.1,18,19,512, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Kodak India Limited (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC). However, directed the AO to delete the addition on account of audit fees of Rs.41 lakh. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on account of non- compete fee paid relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution, cited supra. However, the CIT(A) granted relief in re…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…of expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed rights issue of Rs.1,18,19,512, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Kodak India Limited (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC). However, directed the AO to delete the addition on account of audit fees of Rs.41 lakh. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on account of non- compete fee paid relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution, cited supra. However, the CIT(A) granted relief in re…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…of expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed rights issue of Rs.1,18,19,512, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Kodak India Limited (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC). However, directed the AO to delete the addition on account of audit fees of Rs.41 lakh. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on account of non- compete fee paid relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution, cited supra. However, the CIT(A) granted relief in re…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…of expenditure incurred in connection with the proposed rights issue of Rs.1,18,19,512, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Kodak India Limited (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC). However, directed the AO to delete the addition on account of audit fees of Rs.41 lakh. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on account of non- compete fee paid relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution, cited supra. However, the CIT(A) granted relief in re…

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 7486/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7486/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ World Trade Centre [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7494/Mum/2007 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Ambuja Cements Limited Dcit–Range-3(1) [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd] बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Elegant Business Park Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 0569 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.222/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 7494/Mum/2007] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) Acit-(Ltu)-1 Ambuja Cements Limited बनाम/ [Earlier Known As Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.] World Trade Centre Elegant Business Park Centre-1, 29Th Floor, Vs. Midc Cross Road “B”, Off Andheri-Kurla Road Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-05. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-0569-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh Thar, Hardik Nirmal &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR & Shri
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…nly u/s 35D, being 1/5th of expenditure incurred on issue of foreign currency convertible bonds. The expenses were stated to have been incurred in AYs 2001-02 & 2002-03 and disallowed in those years relying upon the decision of Apex Court in Kodak India Ltd. (253 ITR 445). Therefore, the same were disallowed in this year also. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same since in earlier AYs, it was held by first appellate authorities that the expenses were incurred for extension of business and therefore covered by Sec. 35D(2) of the Act. However, it was held that the deduction would start from year in which the project star…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 2966/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…regard, the Ld CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (a) Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs. CIT (1997)(225 ITR 798) (b) Punjab State Indl. Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT (225 ITR 792) (c) CIT Vs. Kodak India Ltd (2002)(253 ITR 445) 16. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee was constrained to increase the share capital by issuing shares in order to meet Capital adequacy Norms fixed by Reserve Bank of India. He submitted that the assessee could not have continued to carry on the business unless it fulfilled the norms of RBI. He submitted that issue of share capital was on…

Inventurus Knowledge Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC), Punjab State Ind. Corp. Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and CIT v.Kodak India Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 445 (SC) and held the same expenditure to be capital in nature as the expenditure for expansion of capital retains the character of capital expenditure since it is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee company is in appeal before us. 6. The assessee company reitera…

Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT (253 ITR 445) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax