Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

368 ITR 692High Court2014#6998 most cited

What is Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Business commencement can occur before revenue generation, and expenses incurred before commencement are allowable. The establishment of readiness to undertake business signifies its commencement.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT · 368 ITR 692 · Section 148 · commencement of business · business readiness · expenses before commencement · capital work in progress · Section 37(1) · Section 32

Sections most often in play

Section 148

Judgments citing Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

Vng Automotive P. Ltd vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income

The appeals are disposed of as allowed

ITA-795/2004HC Delhi10 Apr 2026
For Appellant: Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana PandaFor Respondent: Mr Abhishek Maratha, SSC, Mr Apoorv
Section 148

…previous year begins with the date of setting up of business. In support his submission he has relied upon the following judgments:-  Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom)  Carefour WC & C India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 368 ITR 692 (Del) 27. Mr. Sethi submitted that though Revenue expenses are allowed from the date business is set up, capital expenditure incurred prior to commencement of business are amortised under Section 35D of the Act and are allowed 1/10th in ten successive year beginning with the previous year in which the business is commenced. He also submi…

Honda Access India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Noida

ITA 3368/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)

…s connotes of situation where the assessee is in a state of readiness to undertake its business which was very much established in the case of assessee. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Carefoul WC & C India (P.) Ltd.368 ITR 692, CIT vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.[2013] 356 ITR 354 (Delhi) and Dhoomketu Builders and Developmen (P) Ltd.216 Taxman 27 for aforesaid contentions. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. 8. Appreciating the matter on record, it can be observed that primarily the Ld. AO was pleased to draw conclusion…

Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3987/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 147Section 32

…d. Vs. CIT, 102 ITR 25 (Guj.) 4. Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (SC) 5. CIT Vs. L.G. Electronics (I) Ltd. 282 ITR 545 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253 (Del.) 7. Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi); 8. Omniglobe Information Tech India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 1 (Delhi); 9. Indian Railway Stations Development Corporations Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 79 (Delhi) 10. Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT, 98 ITR 167 11. Chhabirani Agro Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. CIT, 191 ITR 226 8. Learned Departmental Representative…

ITO Ward-7(2), New Delhi vs. Darrameks Hotels & Developers Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9888/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 9888/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Darrameks Hotels & Developers Ward-7(2), Pvt. Ltd., 15, Ring Road, Lajpat New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd9005F

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR
Section 179Section 62(1)(a)Section 62(2)

…oject have been capitalized as capital work in progress (CWIP). The company has shown capital work in progress of Rs. 21.90 crores as on 31.03.2016 in the balance sheet. 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Carfour WC & C India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 368 ITR 692 (Delhi) and CIT vs. L.G. Electronics (India) Ltd. 282 ITR 545 (Delhi) held that business of the assessee may commence on date and the income generation may start at a much later date. Despite the fact that no revenue is generated the expenses u/s 37(1) and u/s 32 have to the allowed. 11. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the H…

Rbl Hotels Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known Ys Lebara Hotels Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 3429/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Aravindan & Shri. PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(34)Section 3Section 71(1)

…ITA No.3428 & 3429/Chny/2018 No.668 of 2016 dated 27.04.2017) as well as in CIT V/s Club Resorts P. Ltd. (203 CTR 587); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (356 ITR 354) & Carefour WC&C India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT (368 ITR 692); the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Western India Vegetable Products V/s CIT (26 ITR 151) besides various other decisions of Tribunal. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that setting up of business would mean group of activities which would make assessee completely ready to carry out business operations. Till the time the asse…

Rbl Hotels Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known Ys Lebara Hotels Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 3428/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Aravindan & Shri. PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(34)Section 3Section 71(1)

…ITA No.3428 & 3429/Chny/2018 No.668 of 2016 dated 27.04.2017) as well as in CIT V/s Club Resorts P. Ltd. (203 CTR 587); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (356 ITR 354) & Carefour WC&C India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT (368 ITR 692); the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Western India Vegetable Products V/s CIT (26 ITR 151) besides various other decisions of Tribunal. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that setting up of business would mean group of activities which would make assessee completely ready to carry out business operations. Till the time the asse…

ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai vs. C.S.Housing Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Accordingly, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A No.2427/Chny/2018 is dismissed

ITA 2427/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम' BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2427/Chny/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013) The Income Tax Officer, M/s. C.S. Housing Property Corporate Ward – 1(3), Vs. Development Private Limited., Room No.612, New No.4, Old No.33, Wanaparthy Road, 6th Floor, Krishna Street, T. Nagar 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 017. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN :AADCC 8013 B (()थ*/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/App…

ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs. Msk (Jv), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7232/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D.R
Section 3

…wn by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the following cases:- (i) CIT Vs. ESPN SOFTWARE INDIA P. LTD. (2008) 301 ITR 368 (Del.); (ii) CIT Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 354 (Del.); (iii) Carefour Wc & C India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 368 ITR 692 (Del.); (iv) CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builder And Development P Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Del.); (v) CIT Vs. Axis Pvt. Equity Limited (Bombay High Court) 391 ITR 370; (vi) Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 435 ITR 34. 7. Thus, we do not find any merit in the case of the revenue and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) is confirmed an…

Sinto Bharat Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward-6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 87/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.87/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Sinto Bharat Manufacturing Vs The Income Tax Officer, Pvt.Ltd. Corporate Ward-6(2), Ii Floor, R.A Building, Marshall Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Pan:Aarcs 3960K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘’ बी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद%य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.87/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Sinto Bharat Manufacturing Vs The Income Tax Officer, Pvt.Ltd. Corporate Ward-6(2), II floor, R.A Building, Marshall Road, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. PAN:AARCS 3960K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mrs. Nithya Sankaran, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT…

M/S Jaypee Fertilizers & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 5175/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Naina Soin Kapil, Sr.DR
Section 251(1)Section 35

…by making investments in other companies having similar object and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had not commenced the business during the year. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in Carefour WC and SC India private limited vs. DCIT 368 ITR 692 (del) wherein it was held that mere setup of business is enough for allowance of expenses and is not necessary that the business should have been commenced. It is further submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the alternative plea of the assessee under section 35 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in r…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1760/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…main business activities in which the respondent-assessee was engaged. It was also held that issue requires a pragmatic and a practical view to be adopted. Further reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi). 3.16. It is submitted that question of setting up is required to be considered and answered from a businessman's point of view, adopting a commonsense approach, and not in the manner in which the revenue wants. The said principle is upheld by judicial authorities as referred above. In the present case, the Appellant was in the position t…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…main business activities in which the respondent-assessee was engaged. It was also held that issue requires a pragmatic and a practical view to be adopted. Further reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi). 3.16. It is submitted that question of setting up is required to be considered and answered from a businessman's point of view, adopting a commonsense approach, and not in the manner in which the revenue wants. The said principle is upheld by judicial authorities as referred above. In the present case, the Appellant was in the position t…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…main business activities in which the respondent-assessee was engaged. It was also held that issue requires a pragmatic and a practical view to be adopted. Further reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi). 3.16. It is submitted that question of setting up is required to be considered and answered from a businessman's point of view, adopting a commonsense approach, and not in the manner in which the revenue wants. The said principle is upheld by judicial authorities as referred above. In the present case, the Appellant was in the position t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4970/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…assessee was not set up. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in CIT vs Dhumketu Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Del.); CIT vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 354 (Del.); Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. vs DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Del.); CIT vs ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 184 taxmann 452 (Del.); CIT vs Arcane Developers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 10 (Del.); and M/s Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No.7274/Mum/2011] (Mumbai Tribunal) in support of his contention that the business shall be deemed to have been commenced when its first activity…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4851/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…assessee was not set up. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in CIT vs Dhumketu Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Del.); CIT vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 354 (Del.); Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. vs DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Del.); CIT vs ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 184 taxmann 452 (Del.); CIT vs Arcane Developers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 10 (Del.); and M/s Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No.7274/Mum/2011] (Mumbai Tribunal) in support of his contention that the business shall be deemed to have been commenced when its first activity…

Nischay Fab Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 463/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, Sr. D.R

…the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities and in support relied upon two decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 356 ITR 354 and Carefour WC & C India Pvt. Ltd. 368 ITR 692. 12. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 13. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee has heavily relied upon the enquiries made 4 . A.Y. 2011-12 from various persons in relation to the purchase and sales of Iron and Steel trading. Ho…

Carefour WC 86C India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (368 ITR 692) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax