CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.

112 TTJ 94Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#5409 most cited

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

Expenditure incurred to establish a new unit of an existing business is considered an extension of that business, not a new business. Therefore, related expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure and depreciation on support equipment is eligible.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Ltd · 112 TTJ 94 · extension of existing business · new unit of existing business · revenue expenditure · depreciation on support equipment · eligible claim · capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S FMC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

…of profit earning process and it aids the assessee to continuously improve its portfolio of products. The assessee also relied upon the decision rendered by Chandigarh bench of ITAT in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 112 TTJ 94 and also the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. [1985] 23 Taxman 400 and also by Chennai bench of ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Magnetic Meter Systems IndiaLtd. [2012] Page 18 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 25 taxmann.com 438. It was submitted that these expenses did not result…

M/S FMC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

…of profit earning process and it aids the assessee to continuously improve its portfolio of products. The assessee also relied upon the decision rendered by Chandigarh bench of ITAT in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007] 112 TTJ 94 and also the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. [1985] 23 Taxman 400 and also by Chennai bench of ITAT in the case of Dy. CIT v. Magnetic Meter Systems IndiaLtd. [2012] Page 18 of 35 ITA Nos. 2611 & 2732/Bang/2018 25 taxmann.com 438. It was submitted that these expenses did not result…

INDIA INDEX SERVICES & PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6913/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…124 ITR 1 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Madras High Court), (iii) CIT Vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 282, (iv) DCIT Vs. Reddiff.com India Ltd. 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), (v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 112 TTJ 94 (Chandigarh) & CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(1990) 182 ITR 62. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the assess…

Showing 120 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (112 TTJ 94) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax