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

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 749/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Lastly comes the third issue of disallowance of fees paid to RoC for enhancing the authorised capital which the assessee claimed as revenue expenditure. Learned Sr. DR submits that such a claim is capital expenditure as per Brook Bond (I) Ltd., vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC). Learned counsel for the assessee submits that before invoking the impugned disallowance, the lower authorities have to examine the field in which the assessee has actually incurred the impugned expenditure. Faced with this situation, we restore the assessee’s instant substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for its actual verificati…

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Kerala

ITA 736/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Lastly comes the third issue of disallowance of fees paid to RoC for enhancing the authorised capital which the assessee claimed as revenue expenditure. Learned Sr. DR submits that such a claim is capital expenditure as per Brook Bond (I) Ltd., vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC). Learned counsel for the assessee submits that before invoking the impugned disallowance, the lower authorities have to examine the field in which the assessee has actually incurred the impugned expenditure. Faced with this situation, we restore the assessee’s instant substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for its actual verificati…

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam, Kerala

ITA 735/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Lastly comes the third issue of disallowance of fees paid to RoC for enhancing the authorised capital which the assessee claimed as revenue expenditure. Learned Sr. DR submits that such a claim is capital expenditure as per Brook Bond (I) Ltd., vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC). Learned counsel for the assessee submits that before invoking the impugned disallowance, the lower authorities have to examine the field in which the assessee has actually incurred the impugned expenditure. Faced with this situation, we restore the assessee’s instant substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for its actual verificati…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…ses pursuant to the terms of Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. The Ld AO at para 19 of the assessment order has observed that RoC filing fees paid for increase in share capital is capital expenditure in view of decisions of Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs CIT [225 ITR 798] and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd Vs CIT [225 ITR 792]. The above addition was upheld by Ld. CIT(A) mainly relying on the findings of the Ld. AO in his order. 12.1. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee in its own case by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos.…

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…ses pursuant to the terms of Court sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. The Ld AO at para 19 of the assessment order has observed that RoC filing fees paid for increase in share capital is capital expenditure in view of decisions of Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs CIT [225 ITR 798] and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd Vs CIT [225 ITR 792]. The above addition was upheld by Ld. CIT(A) mainly relying on the findings of the Ld. AO in his order. 12.1. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee in its own case by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos.…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…e of GDR which were utilized for business expansion of the Assessee. The Assessee claimed expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act in AY 1995-96 which was disallowed relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 795). The Assessee alternatively requested to allow deduction under section 35D of the Act which was not considered in AY 1995-96 since expansion of industrial undertaking was not completed. 64. The expansion of the business industrial undertaking completed in AY 1997- 98 wherefrom the Assessee has claimed deduction under section 35D of the Act of Rs…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…₹.11,71,99,600 incurred in connection with issue of GDR of USD 109,999,983 in the previous year relevant to A.Y.1995-96. Expenditure claimed u/s.37(1) in AY 1995-96 disallowed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 795) - Alternative claim for deduction u/s. 35D not considered in AY 1995-96 since expansion of industrial undertaking was not completed. Copy of Assessment Order for AY 1995- 96 is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree S…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…₹.11,71,99,600 incurred in connection with issue of GDR of USD 109,999,983 in the previous year relevant to A.Y.1995-96. Expenditure claimed u/s.37(1) in AY 1995-96 disallowed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 795) - Alternative claim for deduction u/s. 35D not considered in AY 1995-96 since expansion of industrial undertaking was not completed. Copy of Assessment Order for AY 1995- 96 is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree S…

C.M.D. Ratnakar Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANJUNATHA G., Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / ITA No. M/s. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAACJ5760H] M/s. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAACJ5760H] धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri C.S.…

Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 781/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANJUNATHA G., Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / ITA No. M/s. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAACJ5760H] M/s. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN: AAACJ5760H] धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri C.S.…

Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2357/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2007-08 The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, M.S.Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Off v. MSK House, Near Passport Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ambavvadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN:AABCM4514F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.209/Ahd/2011 Arising out of ITA NO. 2308/Ahd./2011 -A.Y. 2007-08 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd., The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, 2nd Floor, MSK House Near, Jhanvi v. Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Restaurant, Panjar…

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2352/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2007-08 The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, M.S.Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Off v. MSK House, Near Passport Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ambavvadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN:AABCM4514F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.209/Ahd/2011 Arising out of ITA NO. 2308/Ahd./2011 -A.Y. 2007-08 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd., The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, 2nd Floor, MSK House Near, Jhanvi v. Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Restaurant, Panjar…

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2308/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2007-08 The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, M.S.Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Off v. MSK House, Near Passport Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ambavvadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN:AABCM4514F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.209/Ahd/2011 Arising out of ITA NO. 2308/Ahd./2011 -A.Y. 2007-08 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd., The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, 2nd Floor, MSK House Near, Jhanvi v. Ahmedabad, Navjivan Trust Bldg., Restaurant, Panjar…

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…at come readily to mind, and which may therefore require being visited and examined for their applicability, i.e., vis-à-vis their ratio, are PSIDC v. CIT [1997] 3 | P a g e Cochin Shipyard Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC); Brook Bond (I) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC); CIT v. Tisco Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 285 (SC); India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). 3.4 The issue qua the second aspect flagged by the ld. Pr.CIT is the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment to s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Even as an amendment is, otherwise than where expressly so, or by necessary implication, to be regarded a…

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

…e assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (225 ITR 792)(SC). The CIT (A) confirmed the action of the AO stating that the said expenditure should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. During the proceedings before us, Ld AR for assessee relied on various judgments including the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case…

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

…e assessment proceedings before us, the Ld AR stated that the said expenditure was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (225 ITR 792)(SC). The CIT (A) confirmed the action of the AO stating that the said expenditure should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. During the proceedings before us, Ld AR for assessee relied on various judgments including the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1646/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

…towards ROC fees paid for increasing the authorized share capital. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the reason that these expenses were capital in nature in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 70. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had increased it’s authorize share capital and also issued company’s shares during the impugned year under consideration. ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 Furth…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1) (1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1645/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

…towards ROC fees paid for increasing the authorized share capital. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the reason that these expenses were capital in nature in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 70. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had increased it’s authorize share capital and also issued company’s shares during the impugned year under consideration. ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 Furth…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1644/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

…towards ROC fees paid for increasing the authorized share capital. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the reason that these expenses were capital in nature in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 70. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had increased it’s authorize share capital and also issued company’s shares during the impugned year under consideration. ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 Furth…

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly the claim of expenditure is allowed as revenue

ITA 1336/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CI

…towards ROC fees paid for increasing the authorized share capital. The Assessing Officer made disallowance for the reason that these expenses were capital in nature in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 70. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had increased it’s authorize share capital and also issued company’s shares during the impugned year under consideration. ITA Nos. 1334 to 1336/Ahd/2017 & ITA Nos. 1644 to 1646/Ahd/2017 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2011-12 Furth…