CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.

103 ITR 715High Court1976#5120 most cited

What is CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. authority for?

Interest paid on borrowed capital for setting up a new division within the same business is allowable as a deduction. This applies even if the new unit does not commence production during the relevant assessment years.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. · 103 ITR 715 · Section 28 · Section 37(1) · interest on borrowed capital · new division · existing business · business expansion · disallowance of interest

Sections most often in play

Section 28Section 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…sh Project whereas as far as the instant case is concerned, it relates to Soda Ash Project Expenses [other than interest expenses] and therefore, reliance of the Court while deciding such an issue on the decision of CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 715 (Guj) as also in case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194/167 Taxman 206 (SC) would have no bearing. 14. Learned senior advocate Shri Soparkar has empathetically urged that both the authorities in the earlier year and in the present year had held the issue in favour of the assessee pointing out that this expenditure was in conn…

Bharatkumar Rajendraprasad Dave, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1926/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…oth hospitals are operating in the same line of business (spine specialty) and hence it cannot be stated that the assessee has started an absolutely new line of business, unconnected with the previous business. 12. In the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.103 ITR 715 (Gujarat), the assessee-company manufacturing glass at one of its unit, established new I.T.A Nos. 1925 & 1926 /Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 10 Bharatkumar Rajendraprasad Dave vs. ACIT glass manufacturing unit at some different place. The business organization, administration and funds of both existing and new units of assessee were…

Bharatkumar Rajendraprasad Dave, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1925/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

…oth hospitals are operating in the same line of business (spine specialty) and hence it cannot be stated that the assessee has started an absolutely new line of business, unconnected with the previous business. 12. In the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.103 ITR 715 (Gujarat), the assessee-company manufacturing glass at one of its unit, established new I.T.A Nos. 1925 & 1926 /Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. 10 Bharatkumar Rajendraprasad Dave vs. ACIT glass manufacturing unit at some different place. The business organization, administration and funds of both existing and new units of assessee were…

The ACIT, Central Caircle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 855/AHD/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…Order-II as under: “6. In respect of the ground No. 2, it was noted by the AO that interest was capitalized but claimed as Revenue expenses. The assessee had claimed the expenditure u/s 36(iii) by relying upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision reported in 103 ITR 715 (Guj.). However, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. Although, the AO had rejected the stand of the assessee but also mentioned that no separate addition was required to be made as the claim had not passed through the books of accounts. When the matter was carried before the firs…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3210/AHD/2003[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…Order-II as under: “6. In respect of the ground No. 2, it was noted by the AO that interest was capitalized but claimed as Revenue expenses. The assessee had claimed the expenditure u/s 36(iii) by relying upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision reported in 103 ITR 715 (Guj.). However, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. Although, the AO had rejected the stand of the assessee but also mentioned that no separate addition was required to be made as the claim had not passed through the books of accounts. When the matter was carried before the firs…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3209/AHD/2003[98-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…Order-II as under: “6. In respect of the ground No. 2, it was noted by the AO that interest was capitalized but claimed as Revenue expenses. The assessee had claimed the expenditure u/s 36(iii) by relying upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision reported in 103 ITR 715 (Guj.). However, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. Although, the AO had rejected the stand of the assessee but also mentioned that no separate addition was required to be made as the claim had not passed through the books of accounts. When the matter was carried before the firs…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2) vs. M/S. Mardia Chemicals Ltd

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3208/AHD/2003[97-98]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…Order-II as under: “6. In respect of the ground No. 2, it was noted by the AO that interest was capitalized but claimed as Revenue expenses. The assessee had claimed the expenditure u/s 36(iii) by relying upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision reported in 103 ITR 715 (Guj.). However, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. Although, the AO had rejected the stand of the assessee but also mentioned that no separate addition was required to be made as the claim had not passed through the books of accounts. When the matter was carried before the firs…

The ACIT, Cen- Cir 2(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Mardia Chemicals Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 3437/AHD/2002[93-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…Order-II as under: “6. In respect of the ground No. 2, it was noted by the AO that interest was capitalized but claimed as Revenue expenses. The assessee had claimed the expenditure u/s 36(iii) by relying upon Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision reported in 103 ITR 715 (Guj.). However, the assessee had suo motu disallowed the claim by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. Although, the AO had rejected the stand of the assessee but also mentioned that no separate addition was required to be made as the claim had not passed through the books of accounts. When the matter was carried before the firs…

Shree Balaji Umber Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1497/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleshree Balaji Umber Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 13(2)(2) Unit No. 201, A Wing Mumbai - 400020 Fulcrum Sahar Road Next To Hyaat Regency, Andheri (E) Mumbai -400099 Pan: Aaacu9207C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Ms. Akshita Bhandari Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…es, stocks, etc. and the Assessee had borrowed loans and utilized them for purchasing shares which were held as investments, the interest on such loans was allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Likewise, in CIT v/s Shah Theaters (P.) Ltd. — (1988) 169 ITR 499/36 Taxman 335 (Raj.) the High Court has held that where the assessee having business of exhibition of motion picture started construction of a cinema theater and for that purpose borrowed money, interest paid on such borrowings was held as allowable. Further, in the case of CIT v/s Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. — (1990) 183 ITR 437 it has been held th…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Candid Industries Limited (Formerly Known As Futuretech Industries Ltd), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1205/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)

…harges was deleted. Applicant also cited the following case laws in its support: 1. Decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench 'B' in the cases of DCIT C-2(3) Vs M/s. Global Forgings Ltd in ITA No. 543 & 1269/Hyd/14 dt 26.11.2014 2. CIT VS Alembic Glass Industries Ltd 103 ITR 715 (Guj.) 3. Decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the cases of ITA No. 711/1154/6ang/2003, 45/Bang/2004 for 1998-99, 1997-98, M/s. Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd, Bangalore Vs JCIT, Hubli. Following the above orders of Hon'ble ITAT, I allow the claim of the applicant”. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…nthetics (I) Ltd. 333 ITR 18 (Del) iii. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT 311 ITR 405 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Monnet Industries Ltd. 221 CTR 266 (Del) v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 98 ITR 20 (All) vi. CIT vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. 103 ITR 715 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Shah Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 169 ITR 499 (Raj) viii. CIT vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. 175 ITR 212 (Kar) ix. CIT vs. Ghanashyam Machine Tools Ltd. Lex ID 390033 (Guj) x. DCIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. (ITA No. 4623 & 4624/Del/2001 (Del ITAT) xi. Raymond Limited vs. JCIT ITA No. 6243/Bom/1995 (Mum ITAT) xii. Havells India Ltd. vs.…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…nthetics (I) Ltd. 333 ITR 18 (Del) iii. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT 311 ITR 405 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Monnet Industries Ltd. 221 CTR 266 (Del) v. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 98 ITR 20 (All) vi. CIT vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. 103 ITR 715 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Shah Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 169 ITR 499 (Raj) viii. CIT vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. 175 ITR 212 (Kar) ix. CIT vs. Ghanashyam Machine Tools Ltd. Lex ID 390033 (Guj) x. DCIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. (ITA No. 4623 & 4624/Del/2001 (Del ITAT) xi. Raymond Limited vs. JCIT ITA No. 6243/Bom/1995 (Mum ITAT) xii. Havells India Ltd. vs.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…gh Court in the case of Prem Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 20 (All.), (ii) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Produce Exchange Corpn. Ltd. (supra), (iii) the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 715 (Guj.), (iv) again the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Expanded Metal Mfgrs. [1991] 55 Taxman 429/189 ITR 317 (All.), (v) the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3) [1993] 68 Taxman 114/200 ITR 341 (Delhi) and (vi) again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 86 Taxman 243/220 ITR…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…gh Court in the case of Prem Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 20 (All.), (ii) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Produce Exchange Corpn. Ltd. (supra), (iii) the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 715 (Guj.), (iv) again the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Expanded Metal Mfgrs. [1991] 55 Taxman 429/189 ITR 317 (All.), (v) the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. (No. 3) [1993] 68 Taxman 114/200 ITR 341 (Delhi) and (vi) again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Veecumsees v. CIT [1996] 86 Taxman 243/220 ITR…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Sukh Sagar Enclave, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1116/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 37(1)

…ement, the trading organization, the administration, the funds and the place of business were common, then it cannot be said that the two ventures are two different businesses carried on by the same company. 10. In CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 715 (Guj.), the assessee was a company manufacturing glass at Baroda. The assessee desired to set up a new glass manufacturing unit in Bangalore and the question that arose was whether the amount spent for the undertaking in Bangalore should be taken on the revenue account or on the capital account. The Gujarat High Court took into consideration the…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)

…otton Mills Ltd vs CIT: 196 ITR 845 (Cal.) - Hindustan Aluminim Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) - CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 215 CTR 250 (Chenn.) - Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 98 ITR 20 (All.) - CIT v. Shah Theatres P. Ltd. : 169 ITR 499 (Raj.) - CIT v. Malwa Vanaspati & Chemicals Co. Ltd., 149 CTR 283 (MP) - CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.: 182 ITR 62 (Ker.) - CCIT v. Senapathy Whitely Ltd. : 101 CTR 31 (Kar.) - CIT v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.: 175 ITR 212 (Kar.) Your Honour's kind attention is also invited to a recent decision of Banglore Bench o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3692/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ses on expansion of an existing business was allowable as Revenue expenditure in terms of Section 36(1) of the Act & various judgment notable among them being that of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT(1966) 60 ITR 52(SC); CIT Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.) & CIT Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 395 (Bom.), according to which, the whole of the interest, was a ‘Revenue’ expense. However, on account of the amendment brought in section 36(1)(iii), interest incurred in respect of an asset not put to use is not a Revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the interest expense of Rs.471.39 before adju…

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3405/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd., Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Bokaro Power Supply Co. Dcit, Circle -3(1), New Delhi Ltd., 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aabcb8976G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Anil Sharma, Agm Respondent By Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

…ses on expansion of an existing business was allowable as Revenue expenditure in terms of Section 36(1) of the Act & various judgment notable among them being that of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT(1966) 60 ITR 52(SC); CIT Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 715 (Guj.) & CIT Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 395 (Bom.), according to which, the whole of the interest, was a ‘Revenue’ expense. However, on account of the amendment brought in section 36(1)(iii), interest incurred in respect of an asset not put to use is not a Revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the interest expense of Rs.471.39 before adju…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…put to actual use. D. The assessee company has relied upon the case laws for proving that its case doesn‘t fall within the meaning of proviso of section 36(1)(iii). -Gujarat Alchemic and Chemicals Ltd [2008] 295 ITR 85 (SC) - Shah Theaters (P) Ltd. [1988] 169 ITR 499, - Kanhiram Ramgopal vs CIT [1988] 170 ITR 41 (MP) It is important to mention here that the facts of the above mentioned case laws relied upon by the assessee are different from the facts of the present case and hence can‘t be applied to the assessee. E. The assessee has claimed that extension of existing undertaking was not present in the ins…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d vs CIT: 196 ITR 845 (Cal .) (viii) Hindustan Aluminim Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) (ix) CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 215 CTR 250 (Chenn.) (x) Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 98 ITR 20 (All.) (xi) CIT v. Shah Theatres P. Ltd. : 169 ITR 499 (Raj.) (xii) CIT v. MalwaVanaspati& Chemicals Co. Ltd., 149 CTR 283 (MP) (xiii) CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.: 182 ITR 62 (Ker.) (xiv) CCIT v. Senapathy Whitely Ltd. : 101 CTR 31 (Kar.) (xv) CIT v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.: 175 ITR 212 (Kar). g) Since the new facility was only an extension of the existing busines…

CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (103 ITR 715) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax