Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 798Supreme Court of India1997#390 most cited

What is Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

228

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · share issue expenses · increase in capital · capital base expansion · deductibility · professional fees · enduring benefit

Also reported as

91 Taxmann 26

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 10BSection 28Section 35DSection 43(5)Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 35dspeculation losssection 43(5)strategic investmentenduring benefitsection 35capital expenditurerevenue expendituredisallowance under section 14abook profitscommercial expediencysection 37(1)

Judgments citing Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 128/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40Section 9(1)

…. The ld. Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee u/s. 35D and relying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC), observed that these expenditures are capital in nature and not allowable as claimed by the assessee by way of revised computation of income. 7 ITA Nos.128, 2620 & 2621/Del./11 and ITA Nos.1236/Del./14 & 699/Del./2014 5. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee appealed before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) after cons…

DCIT vs. M/S E4E Business Solutions P. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1763/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarsn It (Tp) A No. Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year 1 1763/Bang/2013 The Dcit, Circle-11(3) M/S E4E Business (2004-05) Bangalore. Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Iseva Systems Pvt. Ltd., Maruthi Chambers, 17/4C, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore. 2 1781/Bang/2013 M/S E4E Business The Dcit, Circle-11(4) (2004-05) Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. (Formerly Iseva Systems & Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Maruthi Chambers, Circle-11(3), 17/4C, Rupena Bangalore. Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore. Pan – Aaaci6324A. 3 1764/Bang/2013 The Dcit, Circle-11(3) M/S E4E Business (2005-06) Bangalore. Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Iseva Systems Pvt. Ltd., Maruthi Chambers, 17/4C, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore. 4 1782/Bang/2013 M/S E4E Business The Dcit, Circle-11(4) (Asst. Year Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. 2005-06) (Formerly Iseva Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Maruthi Chambers, 17/4C, Rupena The Acit, Agrahara, Hosur Road, Circle-11(3), Bangalore. Bangalore. Revenue By : Smt. Swapna Das, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Date Of Hearing : 22-2-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-3-2017

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 10A

…nd issue raised in respect of corporate-tax matter is as per ground No.7. In this regard, we find that this disallowance was upheld by the learned CIT(A) by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court rendered in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798. It is noted by the AO/CIT (A) that the assessee company had paid fees to the…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. C.S Business Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 184/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri. Premchand J (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ore us, the Ld. DR relying on the assessment order submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the additions made by the AO. The AO has made the disallowances in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brook Bond India Limited (225 ITR 798) therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are liable to be set aside. 6. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO observing as under:- “Ground Nos. 1,2 & 4 regarding recruitment expenses, SOX compliance testing expenses and ISAP awards to the director: These expenses have been primarily disallowed by the A.O on the…

Jk Tyre & Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cen. Cir-VI, Kolkata

ITA 371/KOL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bani Brata Dutta, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

…he submission of the assessee has been considered carefully. It is well settled expenditure incurred for raising share capital is capital expenditure and therefore inadmissible expenditure. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 225 ITR 798 held that expenditures in connection with additional issue of shares the capital expenditure as the expenditure is directly related to expansion of capital base. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Vs. CIT. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. CI…

D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Microsec Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (on Ground No

ITA 2779/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Dcit, Circle-12, Vs. M/S Microsec Financial P-7, Chowringhee Square, Services Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Shivam Chambers, 53, Kolkata-69 Sayed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata-700019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7147 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.212/Xii/12/11-12, Dated 23.09.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 16.11.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 21.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,46,66,807/- & Revised Return Of Income On 19.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,98,36,700/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) By Making Various Disallowances.

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ent order, the Assessing Officer held that the expenses incurred for bringing out an IPO 6 M/s Microsec Financial Services Ltd. is a capital expenses as per judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd.Vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 798. 5.3 Heaving heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee, as the proposition canvassed by the ld AR for the assessee are supported by the judgments of various High Courts and facts narrated by him above. As ld AR pointed out that the company did…

Asst CIT 11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7773/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Rishavdev Technocable Ltd. Unit No. 53, 1St Floor, Jagat Satguru Tax – 11(1), Mumbai, Room No. 217, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai Vs. Industries, Vishveshwar Nagar Road, 400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr2962D .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shishir Dhamija, Dr Assessee By .. None .. Date Of Hearing 03-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 03-11-2016

Section 144

…e capital increased from Rs. 5,68,91,000/- to Rs. 68,91,000/- to Rs.26,68,98,680/- and accordingly these expenses relating to increase in share capital cannot be allowed, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Vs CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A). The CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that these expenses on public issue of shares or debentures are in the nature of commission, brokerage and other charges for drafting, 6 typing and printing. According to him these are covered as allowable as 1/5th of the total ex…

M/S.Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009611-009611 - 2016Supreme Court16 Sept 2016
Section 35D

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9611 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 31962 of 2011) M/S. SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHENNAI RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9612 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.33503 of 2011) J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2. Matter heard finally. 3. Two issues are raised in these appeals by the appellant/assessee, which is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale o…

M/S.Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009611-009611 - 2016Supreme Court16 Sept 2016
Section 35D

…Page 1 JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9611 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 31962 of 2011) M/S. SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHENNAI RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9612 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.33503 of 2011) J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2. Matter heard finally. 3. Two issues are raised in these appeals by the appellant/assessee, which is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale o…

New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2851/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…for the expansion of the capital base of a company is to be treated as a capital expenditure as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd v. C1T [1997] 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the expenditure and the receipts directly relating to the share capital of a company are of capital in nature and therefore, cannot be taxed under the Act save for certain exceptions. 1.5.3 Till assessment year 2012-13 share premium received by any company was not deemed as income. Even from AY 2013-14 share premium received by a liste…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2752/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…for the expansion of the capital base of a company is to be treated as a capital expenditure as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd v. C1T [1997] 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC). Thus the expenditure and the receipts directly relating to the share capital of a company are of capital in nature and therefore, cannot be taxed under the Act save for certain exceptions. 1.5.3 Till assessment year 2012-13 share premium received by any company was not deemed as income. Even from AY 2013-14 share premium received by a liste…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory, Mumbai

ITA 4428/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadवष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4428/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-2(3) M/S. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Factory Ltd.,5Th Floor, 139, Nagindas Vs. Bhavanmk Road, Master Rd.Fort, Mumbai-1. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaact 1343 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 Co/144/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. The Seksaria Biswan Sugar Vs. Acit-2(3) Factory Ltd.Mumbai. Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Y.P.Trivedi & Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Sahu-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…ture pertaining to increase in authorised share capital for issue of right issue,the FAA held that it was clearly a capital expenditure. He referred to the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 792) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798) and held that the AO was justified in levying the penalty. 5.Before us,the Departmental Representative(DR) relied upon the cases of Zoom Communication(327ITR510)and Mak Data(358 ITR593) and stated that assessee had considered particulars of income, that AO had rightly levied the penalty. The Authorised Representative(AR) stated that it was an i…

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)

…wance by holding that the expenditure incurred for expansion of capital base is Capital Expenditure. In this 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…

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 847/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…he Act for failure to deduct tax at source thereon under section 195 of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the said expenditure is capital in nature placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798). 6.3.2 We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. (supra) has held that even though the increase in capital results in expansion of the capital base of the company and incidentally that would help the business of the company and may also help in profit making, the expenses incurred in that connection still retains t…

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…he Act for failure to deduct tax at source thereon under section 195 of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the said expenditure is capital in nature placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798). 6.3.2 We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd. (supra) has held that even though the increase in capital results in expansion of the capital base of the company and incidentally that would help the business of the company and may also help in profit making, the expenses incurred in that connection still retains t…

M/S. Birla Global Finance Ltd vs. The ACIT CC-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1802/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Pawan Singh (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1802/Mum/2005 (Assessment Year 2001-02) M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ACIT/DCIT CC-1 (Successor of Birla Global Vs. 9th Floor Finance Ltd.) Old CGO Building Appejay House Annexe 2nd Floor, Shahid Bhagat M.K. Road Singh Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 001. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2046/Mum/2005 (Assessment Year 2001-02) ACIT/DCIT CC-1 M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. 9th Floor Vs. (Successor of M/s Birla Old CGO Building Global Finance Ltd.) Annexe Appejay House M.K. Road 2nd Floor, Shahid…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

ITA 1222/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…an opposite conclusion." 9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co. (supra) [sic- General Insurance Corpn.], the Supreme Court considered its earlier two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 598 : (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 594 : (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). Distinguishing these two judgments, the Supreme Court pointed out that those cases related to the issue of fresh shares which led to an inflow of fresh funds into the company, which expands or adds to its capital employed in the co…

DCIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

ITA 1172/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…an opposite conclusion." 9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co. (supra) [sic- General Insurance Corpn.], the Supreme Court considered its earlier two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 598 : (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 594 : (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). Distinguishing these two judgments, the Supreme Court pointed out that those cases related to the issue of fresh shares which led to an inflow of fresh funds into the company, which expands or adds to its capital employed in the co…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

ITA 1946/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…an opposite conclusion." 9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co. (supra) [sic- General Insurance Corpn.], the Supreme Court considered its earlier two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 598 : (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 594 : (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). Distinguishing these two judgments, the Supreme Court pointed out that those cases related to the issue of fresh shares which led to an inflow of fresh funds into the company, which expands or adds to its capital employed in the co…

Jt CIT OSD Cir 6(2) vs. M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd

In the result, appeal is dismissed on this point

ITA 4394/MUM/2003[99-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016

Bench: Us For Fresh Adjudication On The Following Issue :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Of Rs.53,74,474/- & Directing The Assessing Officer To Rework Out The Deduction U/S. 35D Relating To The Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Page 2 Of 4 Expenditure Incurred On Global Depository Receipts, Relying On His Order For The A.Y. 1998-99 In The Assessee’S Own Case, Which Has Not Been Accepted By The Department & Contested In Further Appeal To The Itat.”

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…accounts”. The Assessing Officer further noted that these expenses are capital in nature, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. CIT (225 ITR 792) and Brooke Bond India Limited vs. CIT (225 ITR 798). The claim of deduction was, accordingly, disallowed. In appeal, however, learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as follows :- “Ground no.16 On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. JC has erred in not allowing a deduction of Rs.53,74,474/- being amortisation u/s 35D at 1/10 of Rs.5,37,44,740/- expenses incurred o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3693/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 35DSection 37

…rm loans etc., and therefore he held the expenses as capital in nature being for the purpose of extension of business of the assessee, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 225 ITR 798, and therefore not allowable. Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee claimed that it was a non-banking financial institution engaged in providing long term finances for housing projects and urban development and for this purpose, the assessee raised funds by way of issue of bonds, debenture, deposits, loans in advan…