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

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…As per Assessing Officer, the law is well settled that the expenditure directly related to ROC/stamping fees paid for increase in capital base of company is held to be capital expenditure by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 and in case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. vs. CIT (1997) taxman 5. It was M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT further held by the Assessing Officer that the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Kisen Chand Chellaram (India) (P.) Ltd. 5 taxman 58 has since been overruled in the…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…As per Assessing Officer, the law is well settled that the expenditure directly related to ROC/stamping fees paid for increase in capital base of company is held to be capital expenditure by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 and in case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. vs. CIT (1997) taxman 5. It was M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT further held by the Assessing Officer that the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Kisen Chand Chellaram (India) (P.) Ltd. 5 taxman 58 has since been overruled in the…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…As per Assessing Officer, the law is well settled that the expenditure directly related to ROC/stamping fees paid for increase in capital base of company is held to be capital expenditure by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 and in case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. vs. CIT (1997) taxman 5. It was M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT further held by the Assessing Officer that the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Kisen Chand Chellaram (India) (P.) Ltd. 5 taxman 58 has since been overruled in the…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…, in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion." 9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co.'s case (supra), the Supreme Court considered its earlier two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT[1997] 225 ITR 798 and Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT[1997] 225 ITR 792. 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 company resulting in the expansion of its…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…issue of shares to employees. They are not relatable to profits and gains arising or accruing from a business/trade. The Apex Court decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Dev Corporation Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) have held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital' is not an allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 • SAR discount does not diminish trading/ business receipts of the issuing company. The company does not suffer any pecuniary detriment. To claim a…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…issue of shares to employees. They are not relatable to profits and gains arising or accruing from a business/trade. The Apex Court decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Dev Corporation Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) have held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital' is not an allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. ITAs No.230 & 574/Del/2017 • SAR discount does not diminish trading/ business receipts of the issuing company. The company does not suffer any pecuniary detriment. To claim a…

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

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1448/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Mahajan -ARFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan CIT-DR
Section 40ASection 40A(9)Section 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…

M/S Tanglin Developement Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1527/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.1527(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Tanglin Developments Ltd., No.23/2, Coffee Day Square, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 Panno.Aabct0356N Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Cr Buildings, Queen’S Road, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By :Shri C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. Pr.CIT also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Industrial Development Corporation 225 ITR 792 and Brook Bond India Ltd., 225 ITR 798 (SC) and held that certain expenses are not allowable either as revenue expenditure nor capital expenditure. 10. The Pr.CIT also expressed the view that foreign fluctuation loss is a notional expenditure and hence it could not be ITA No.1527(Bang/2018 7 capitalized. Accordingly, he observed that when notional expenditure is not allowed to be cap…

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SA No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN/GIR No.AAACM3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & SA No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K…

M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 37/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 56(2)

…bmitted that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per para 5.2 of his order in which he had decided the issue against the assessee, by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Brooke rendered in the case of Bond India Limited Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 798 and also judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of PSIDC Ltd., Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 792 (SC). He drew our attention to page 5 of additional evidence 1 filed before Tribunal and it was pointed out that this is an agreement dated 14.11.2014 between the assessee and M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., and in particular, our attent…

M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2541/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 56(2)

…bmitted that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per para 5.2 of his order in which he had decided the issue against the assessee, by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Brooke rendered in the case of Bond India Limited Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 798 and also judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of PSIDC Ltd., Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 792 (SC). He drew our attention to page 5 of additional evidence 1 filed before Tribunal and it was pointed out that this is an agreement dated 14.11.2014 between the assessee and M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., and in particular, our attent…

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 75/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 35D(1)(ii)Section 35D(2)(c)

…ed our attention to both the lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned disallowance more particularly the CIT(A)’s findings in page 4 of lower appellate order referring to hon’ble apex court’s decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. 91 Taxman 26 (SC) [(1997) 225 ITR 798] that such an expenditure under the head share issue expenses is of capital in nature. Coming to section 35D, Mr. Sankar contended that the impugned amortization is allowable only for “pre-operative expenses”. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant stand since section 35D(1)(ii) makes it clear that such an expenditure is allowable not only that pe…

M/S. Athena Energy Venture Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4438/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 271

…crease in authorized capital since assessee, in the computation of income, had disallowed suo-moto of Rs.24,85,300/- as against Rs.34,85,300/-. While doing so the AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 798. The AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 and levied penalty of Rs.3,39,900/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 5. Since none appeared before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A), in the exparte order passed by him, sustained the penalty so levied by the AO. 6. Aggriev…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Solarwinds India Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2079/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs M/S. Solar Winds India Pvt. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle – 6(2), No.16, Iii Floor, Rms Apartment, Chennai. No.12, Gopalakrishna Street, Pondy Bazaar, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aacct4499H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramakrishnan, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramakrishnan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ure that arose due to cancellation of ESOP by the parent-company and hence this case is covered by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State lndustries Development Corporation Ltd. [1997] 225 lTR 792 and Brooke Bond lndia Ltd l[1997] 225 ITR 798. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the amount in question comprises of ESOP spread over several years which was erroneously claimed as expenditure of AY 2016-17. 2.4 The Ld CIT(A) should have notice that the expenditure is in fact expenditure of the parent-company and not of the assessee. 3. For these and other grounds that may be ad…

Sam Fine O Chem Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 11 (1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3755/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabhan-Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…revenue expenses since it was incurred to increase the share capital of the assessee company and therefore, expenditure on capital account. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited vs. CIT (225 ITR 798) and Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 792) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. In the stated decisions, it was held that increase in capital results in expansion of capital base and therefore, the 3 M/s. Sam Fine O Chem Limited Assessment Year :2013-14 expenditure would retain the character of capital expenditure. Regarding al…

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…counsel for assessee that convertible debentures were converted into equity shares and therefore the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (225 ITR 792) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (225 ITR 798) will not be applicable. According to him, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (286 ITR 232) wherein it was held that when bonus shares are issued, any expenditure in issue of bonus share should be regarded as revenue expenditure will apply. According to IT(TP)A No.697/Bang/2017 Page 12 of 12…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 116 Taxman 406 in which following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of capital base of the company was capital expenditure even though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The issue was decided against the asses…

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 116 Taxman 406 in which following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of capital base of the company was capital expenditure even though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The issue was decided against the asses…

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 116 Taxman 406 in which following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of capital base of the company was capital expenditure even though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The issue was decided against the asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 116 Taxman 406 in which following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India 225 ITR 798, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since expenses incurred in connection with the issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital was directly related to expenditure expansion of capital base of the company was capital expenditure even though it might incidentally help in company’s business. The issue was decided against the asses…