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

Eos Power India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6881/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2(22)Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 6881/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) E O S Power India Private Jt. Commissioner of Income Limited Tax (OSD) 8(1), Unit No.57, SDF-II, Seepz-SEZ Vs. Mumbai Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 096 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCCC3626K Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, AR Revenue by : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR Date of hearing: 28.04.2023 Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are the two appeals filed by EOS Power India Pvt. Ltd. (assessee /…

Dhabriya Polywood Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 78/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154

…tly allowed the same the facts of the case. Relief may under the provision of Sec. 154 if please be granted by quashing the the Act.’’.Furtyher in the case of said disallowance of Rs. 9,38,000 Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs CIT made by ld. AO and confirmed by (SC) 225 ITR 798 and in the case ld. CIT(A). of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (SC) 225 ITR 702 held that expenditure incurred on account of ROC filing for issuing of share is of capital nature. Therefore, the claim of the assesee is not tenable. 3. In the facts and circumstances of In the order passed u/s 154 of the the case and in l…

M/S Trine Entertainment Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal GoyalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 40

…med same as ‘Revenue expenditure’. The Assessing Officer treated the same as ‘Capital expenditure’ by 5 M/s. Trine Entertainment Ltd. placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC) and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. In our view, it is a case where assessee has made a claim and same has been disallowed as, according to the Assessing Officer, the said expenditure is capital in nature. First o…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…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…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. CCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

DCIT-Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

DCIT CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…as deduction towards share issue expenses for Assessment Year 2012- 13. The Assessing Officer alleged that the expenses incurred are in the nature of capital expenditure as per Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). On being inquired, the assessee pointed out that it has incurred public issue expenses at the time of IPO during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011- 12. The 1/5th of the public issue expenses amounting to Rs.5,77,02,769/- are written off during the Assessment Year 2012-13 in question under Section 35D of the Act. Th…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

ITA - 185 / 2023HC Delhi27 Mar 2023
Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)Section 37

…plea, while disagreeing with the respondent/assessee, that it could claim a deduction qua the aforementioned amount under Section 37 of the Act. The disagreement was based on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Brook Bond India Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC). 4.1 However, having regard to the fact, that the necessary ingredients for laying a claim made under Section 35D of the Act were available on record, the Court after applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. v. CIT (2016) 388 ITR 1 (SC) allowed the amortization claim 5. Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior sta…

M/S. Bellezza (India) Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 74/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Nag/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Bellazza (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle-2, Lg-3, Achraj Tower-Ii, Vs Nagpur. Chhaoni Chowk, Chhindwara Road, Nagpur – 13. Pan: Aaccb 4029 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.C.Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 05.11.2014 Emanating From The Order Of Acit(Ao) Dated 30.12.2011 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act,1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] A.C.I.T. Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Account & Estimated Income @ 5% Of Total Receipts & Also Adding Additional Income Of Rs.30 Lacs To The Returned Income. Learned C.I.T.(A) Has Confirm The Addition Without Any Basis. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) & A.C.I.T. Erred In Not Accepting The Assessee’S Various Submission & Supporting Documents Filed By The

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37

…fact by the assessee that Rs.3,81,000/- had been spend on Registration fee for increase in Authorised capital. This issue has been discussed by the AO in the assessment order and AO has relied on the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Brook Bond India Ltd 225 ITR 798 (SC), while disallowing the impugned amount. The assessee has accepted in the submission which is reproduced in the assessment order that the said expenditure was towards registration fee for increase in authorised capital. The said expenditure is not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure.Hence, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed.…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…ompany from the employees who have availed the scheme. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 798 held that the said expenditure would be capital in nature. This action was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that this issue is now settled by the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd., in favour of the assessee, wherein it has been held that the deduction is to be allowed for the difference between the exercise price of…

Shri Vardhman Ornaments Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 567/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 567/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Vardhman Ito बनाम/ Ward – 4(1)(3), Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 205 & 201 A/B 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad Super Mall, Nr. Lal Bunglow, C. G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aancs6533N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Written Submission Filed अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/07/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 14/10/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 8, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Order Dated 14.03.2015 Passed By The Ito

For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

…The said addition has been made pursuant to the ratio laid down in the matter of Punjab Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 and also the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Brookbond India Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798, which has not been controverted by the assessee in the written notes of submission in the absence of which, we confirm the said addition. 11. The addition on account of membership fees of Rs.1,50,000/- paid to All India Gems & Jewellery Federation has been challenged before us. It is the case of the assessee that such membership paid every peri…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…admissibility of the expenditure which are not for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 796 (SC); Brooke Bond India Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 26. The Ld.AR before us relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of BIOCON Ltd vs DCIT (T.S. 322 ITAT 2013 (Bangalore) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd 211 Taxman 554 (Mad). The Ld.AR further stated that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 shall co…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…admissibility of the expenditure which are not for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 796 (SC); Brooke Bond India Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC). 26. The Ld.AR before us relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of BIOCON Ltd vs DCIT (T.S. 322 ITAT 2013 (Bangalore) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd 211 Taxman 554 (Mad). The Ld.AR further stated that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 shall co…

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 110/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 110/Hyd/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s.KSK Energy Ventures Income Tax, Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AACCK0220B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri S.Rama Rao, AR राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 14/07/202…

Dana India Technical Centre Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (2), Pune

ITA 437/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.437/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

…xpenses paid to E&Y for certification on valuation of analysis as per the requirements of the RBI. This was done in connection with valuation for issuance of CCDs. The AO invoked the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) to hold that such amount was capital expenditure as expansion of capital base. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this score. 7. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee paid Rs.5.82 lakh to E&Y for certification in connection with Compulsory Convertible Debent…