CIT v. Armour Consultants P. Ltd.

355 ITR 418High Court2013#9738 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Armour Consultants P. Ltd.

M/S. KIRTILAL KALIDAS JEWELLERS (P) LTD.,CIMBATORE vs. ACIT(CORPORATE CIRCLE-2), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 151/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Banusekar, CharteredFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…epresentative for the Assessee referred to a plethora of judicial proceedings including the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai Vs. Armour Consultants Private Limited reported in [2013] 355 ITR 418 (Madras) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court clearly held that the expenditure in the nature of partitions, vinyl flooring and interior decoration to make a leasehold office premises functional, is a revenue expenditure. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT supporting the order of the Commissioner of In…

GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5317/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 43B

…e assessee and thus has not resulted into any enduring benefit or creation of any new assets. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his argument namely; 1. ITO vs. IBP Co. Ltd. (20 ITD 470) (Cal.), 2. CIT vs. Armour Consultants (P.) Ltd. (355 ITR 418) (Mad – HC) 3. CIT vs. Delhi Press and Samachar Patra (P.) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 590 (Delhi – HC) 4. CIT vs. Bharat Alluminium Co. Ltd. (292 ITR 600) (Delhi HC) 5. Evergreen Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Addl CIT (ITA No.117 of 2015) 6. DCIT vs. Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1598 of 2010 7. DCIT vs. Sachdev Gateways & Gateways Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. N.RAGHUNATH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3224/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Pavuna Sundari, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

…7/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 dated 30.09.2005, wherein the CIT(A) relying on the following decisions a) CIT Vs Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd (2007) 292 ITR 266 (Mad) b) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 324 (Mad) c) CIT Vs Armour Consultants P. Ltd (2013) 355 ITR 418 (Mad) d) CIT Vs. Amrutanina Ltd. (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 392 (Mad) e) M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Management Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 518 & 519/Mds/2010 f) M/s. Emdee Apparels Vs. ACIT (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 10 (Bang.) and on a detailed order allowed the appeal after distinguishing the case of M/s. A B T Ltd. The CIT(A) while allowing…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. N.RAGHUNATH, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3223/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Pavuna Sundari, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

…7/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 dated 30.09.2005, wherein the CIT(A) relying on the following decisions a) CIT Vs Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd (2007) 292 ITR 266 (Mad) b) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 324 (Mad) c) CIT Vs Armour Consultants P. Ltd (2013) 355 ITR 418 (Mad) d) CIT Vs. Amrutanina Ltd. (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 392 (Mad) e) M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Management Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 518 & 519/Mds/2010 f) M/s. Emdee Apparels Vs. ACIT (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 10 (Bang.) and on a detailed order allowed the appeal after distinguishing the case of M/s. A B T Ltd. The CIT(A) while allowing…

ROHDA SPECIALTIY CHEMICALS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…Limited directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the excess provision reversed is shown as income in the next year and if not to take remedial action in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Armour Consultants Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 418]. Before us the Ld. Counsel submits that this is only a year end provision which was reversed in the next year and offered excess provision to tax. He therefore submitted that no disallowance is attracted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India Vs. ITO [107 I…

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. ALBRIGHT & WILSON CHEMICALS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…Limited directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the excess provision reversed is shown as income in the next year and if not to take remedial action in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Armour Consultants Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 418]. Before us the Ld. Counsel submits that this is only a year end provision which was reversed in the next year and offered excess provision to tax. He therefore submitted that no disallowance is attracted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India Vs. ITO [107 I…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1762/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nished by the assessee was never doubted by the lower authorities. According to him, a sum of "94,71,490/- was suo motu capitalized by the assessee. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. 355 ITR 418. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that claim of the assessee was under sec. 37(1) of the Act. As per ld. Authorised Representative the expenditure claimed was not capital in nature. According to him, Explanation 1 to Sec. 32(1) of the Act applied only to capital items. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that expenditure incurred for f…

AMEE FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1531/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…nished by the assessee was never doubted by the lower authorities. According to him, a sum of "94,71,490/- was suo motu capitalized by the assessee. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. 355 ITR 418. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that claim of the assessee was under sec. 37(1) of the Act. As per ld. Authorised Representative the expenditure claimed was not capital in nature. According to him, Explanation 1 to Sec. 32(1) of the Act applied only to capital items. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that expenditure incurred for f…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1761/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…ed by the assessee was never doubted by the lower authorities. According to him, a sum of "94,71,490/- was suo motu capitalized by the assessee. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. 355 ITR 418. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that claim of the assessee was under sec. 37(1) of the Act. As per ld. Authorised Representative the expenditure claimed was not capital in nature. According to him, Explanation 1 to Sec. 32(1) of the Act applied only to capital items. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that expenditure incurred f…

AMEE FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1530/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…ed by the assessee was never doubted by the lower authorities. According to him, a sum of "94,71,490/- was suo motu capitalized by the assessee. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. 355 ITR 418. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that claim of the assessee was under sec. 37(1) of the Act. As per ld. Authorised Representative the expenditure claimed was not capital in nature. According to him, Explanation 1 to Sec. 32(1) of the Act applied only to capital items. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that expenditure incurred f…

SULZER INDIA LTD,PUNE vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7324/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234B

…. Ltd. v. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Yum! Restaurants (I) P. Ltd. v. ACIT, 33 Taxmann.com 633( Delhi HC). The ld counsel also relied upon decisions in the case of CIT v. Hero Management Services Limited 360 ITR 68(Del), CIT v. Armour Consultants Private Limited , 355 ITR 418(Mad.) , CIT v. Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited 346 ITR 53(Raj.) , CIT v. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd 33 ITR 681(Bom.) and CIT v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited, 196 Taxman 94(Del.). Thus the ld. Counsel submitted that provisions for expenses of Rs.11,15,000/-- should be allowed as the provisions for expenses of Rs.11…

CIT v. Armour Consultants P. Ltd. (355 ITR 418) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax