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

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2100/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…sessee was justified in seeking for 15 I.T.A. No.2100/Chny/2017 & C.O No.152/Chny/2017 bifurcation of the expenses incurred into capital and revenue. The Division Bench referred to the decision in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 798/91 Taxman 26 (SC). In the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (supra), it was held that expenditure, in connection with the additional issue of shares, paid to the…

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs PC Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP5443Q CO No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 CO No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 PC Jewellers Ltd., Vs ACIT, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP5443Q Ass…

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Vs PC Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP5443Q CO No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 CO No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 PC Jewellers Ltd., Vs ACIT, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCP5443Q Ass…

Prabhat Telecom (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1751/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. The Last Adjournment Was Taken On 03/02/2020 By The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee. Thereafter, The Notice Of Hearing On 26/03/2020, 17/06/2020, 19/08/2020 Was Sent To The Assessee But On Those Dates Bench Did Not Function. Later, Fresh Notices Were Sent To The Assessee For Hearing Scheduled On 20/10/2020, 03/12/2020, 25/02/2021, 16/06/2021 & 05/08/2021. On All These Occasions, There Is Absolutely No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. Hence, We Are Inclined To Dispose Of This Appeal Due To Continuous Non-Cooperation From The Side Of The Assessee & On Hearing The Ld. Dr & After Perusing The Materials Available On Record.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…hence, it is capital expenditure. This disallowance has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4.2. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT (1997) reported in 225 ITR 798, wherein it was held that fees paid to ROC for increase in authorised share capital is capital expenditure 6 M/s. Prabhat Telecom (India) Ltd., and cannot be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, the ground No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. The ground No.3 raised by the assessee is with regard to levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234…

Sacmi Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 247/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.247/Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhirubhai Shah, AR
Section 143(2)Section 35D

…penditure being revenue expenditure in nature. Before the ld.AO the assessee relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P.Ltd., 130 ITR 385 (Mad); and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Brooke bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 and others. The assessee, alternatively pleaded that 1/5th of the said expenses should be allowed under section 35D of the Act. However, the ld.AO did not accept explanation of the assessee. He held that by converting the debentures into equity share capital, the capital base of the assessee-company has been increased, and therefore, incurrence o…

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 792/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

…enditure of Rs.9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in Brook Bond India Limited vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798. He failed to appreciate that unlike in Brook Bond’s case, the funds received by issue of shares was not a public issue but was restricted to a few Qualified Institutional Buyers only on negotiated terms. 3.2 That without prejudice to Ground No.3.1, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in completing ignoring and not appreciating that the sum of Rs.9,4…

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 791/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

…enditure of Rs.9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in Brook Bond India Limited vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798. He failed to appreciate that unlike in Brook Bond’s case, the funds received by issue of shares was not a public issue but was restricted to a few Qualified Institutional Buyers only on negotiated terms. 3.2 That without prejudice to Ground No.3.1, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in completing ignoring and not appreciating that the sum of Rs.9,4…

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 790/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

…enditure of Rs.9,46,22,358/- u/s 37(1) as capital nature on the ground that the same related to issue of equity shares of the company to selected Qualified Institutional Buyers by applying the ratio of the Apex Court in Brook Bond India Limited vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798. He failed to appreciate that unlike in Brook Bond’s case, the funds received by issue of shares was not a public issue but was restricted to a few Qualified Institutional Buyers only on negotiated terms. 3.2 That without prejudice to Ground No.3.1, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in completing ignoring and not appreciating that the sum of Rs.9,4…

Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 907/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ployees which is on par with any :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 907/Hyd/2019 & 252/H/18 Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd., Hyd. perquisite or remuneration. However, the AO relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 and CIT Vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. 225 ITR 792, held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee cannot allowed as a revenue expenditure and disallowed the above amount of Rs. 26,59,559/- which was incurred by the assessee on account of ESOPs and added back to the total income of the assessee. 6.1 Before the CIT(A)…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited(Formerly Sks Microfinance Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 252/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ployees which is on par with any :- 4 -: ITA Nos. 907/Hyd/2019 & 252/H/18 Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd., Hyd. perquisite or remuneration. However, the AO relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 and CIT Vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. 225 ITR 792, held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee cannot allowed as a revenue expenditure and disallowed the above amount of Rs. 26,59,559/- which was incurred by the assessee on account of ESOPs and added back to the total income of the assessee. 6.1 Before the CIT(A)…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2324/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2322/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2325/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2323/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2321/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2320/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…cts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not appreciating that the intention behind issuing ESOPs i…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of India(Sbi)

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/27/2013HC Karnataka08 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.27 OF 2013 C/W I.T.A. NO.26 OF 2013 I.T.A. NO.27 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.9727 K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (B…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of India(Sbi)

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

ITA/26/2013HC Karnataka08 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.27 OF 2013 C/W I.T.A. NO.26 OF 2013 I.T.A. NO.27 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.9727 K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (B…

DCIT, Circle-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. Ltd

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…ely for the purpose of Appellant‟s business and therefore, is revenue expenditure and should be allowed as such under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the decision of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Page 14 of 29 [1997] 225 ITR 798 is not applicable to the present case since the assessee involved, namely Brooke Bond was not a financial institution. b. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai v. Kreon Financial Services Ltd., [2013] 358 ITR 542, Madras High Court upheld the CIT(A) allowing share issue expenses under section 37(1) of IT Act. It is to be noted that in this case,…

Ifci Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-11(1)

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…ely for the purpose of Appellant‟s business and therefore, is revenue expenditure and should be allowed as such under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. It is submitted that the decision of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Page 14 of 29 [1997] 225 ITR 798 is not applicable to the present case since the assessee involved, namely Brooke Bond was not a financial institution. b. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai v. Kreon Financial Services Ltd., [2013] 358 ITR 542, Madras High Court upheld the CIT(A) allowing share issue expenses under section 37(1) of IT Act. It is to be noted that in this case,…