CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

172 ITR 257Supreme Court of India1988#814 most cited

What is CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. authority for?

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. · 172 ITR 257 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · deferred revenue expenditure · business deductions · Section 35D · Section 32(1)(ii) · Section 40A(9)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 115JBSection 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211section 35dwholly and exclusively for businesssection 32(1)(ii)enduring benefitslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-I

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…sions in the following cases: a) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services [P] Ltd 233 ITR 468 [SC] b) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 [SC] c) L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293 [SC] d) CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies ltd 172 ITR 257 [SC] e) CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 [DEL] 68. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are misplaced. It is the say of the ld. DR that the helipad belongs to the assessee and to protect the same from overflow of water, the assessee has constructed boundary wall. The ld. DR vehem…

M/S Hilton Roulunds Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/325/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…ITA 325 2005 Page 1 of 30 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 325/2005 Reserved on : 14th December, 2017 Date of decision :20th April, 2018 M/S HILTON ROULUNDS LTD. . .... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar & Mr. Aniket D. Aggarwal, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SA…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT assessee, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure. In support the reliance was placed on following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); 2) CIT vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2007) 208 CTR (Del) 476; 3) Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 977. 6. The AO first of all held that, the judgments relied upon by the assessee are not applicable on the facts of the assessee’s case, because in these cases the issue was regarding payment of advance rent, whereas, in the case of assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT assessee, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure. In support the reliance was placed on following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); 2) CIT vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2007) 208 CTR (Del) 476; 3) Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 977. 6. The AO first of all held that, the judgments relied upon by the assessee are not applicable on the facts of the assessee’s case, because in these cases the issue was regarding payment of advance rent, whereas, in the case of assessee…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ncurred merely in facilitating assessee’s operation or enable assessee’s business to be carried on effectively, while leaving capital untouched. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). If the expenditure incurred does not bring into existence any new assets but only facilitate operation to ensure that the existing runway is maintained properly ensuring safety of the Aircraft or passenger and also Airport premises and no new asset has come into existence the expenditure is revenue in nature. We are of the considered view t…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…C) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs Associated • Companies Limited. 172 ITR 257 (SC) To the contrary, the Appellant distinguished above case laws from its facts and also relied on several case laws to support its claim:  Modi Spinning & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT : 200 ITR 544 (Delhi)  CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd. [1999] 107 Taxman 442 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD)  CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. […

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…C) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs Associated • Companies Limited. 172 ITR 257 (SC) To the contrary, the Appellant distinguished above case laws from its facts and also relied on several case laws to support its claim:  Modi Spinning & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT : 200 ITR 544 (Delhi)  CIT v. Hindustan Times Ltd. [1999] 107 Taxman 442 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD)  CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. […

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4374/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…: A) CIT V/s Gujarat Mineral Devp.Corp. (1981) 132 ITR 377(Guj); which is affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and reported in (2001) 249 ITR 787; B) National Organic Chemicals Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 (Bom) C) CIT V/s Associated Cementg Co. Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); D) CIT V/s Samsung India Ele.c Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 21 (Del) E) Add.CIT V/s Dhampur Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 194 (All); F) CIT V/s Saw Pipes Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 35 (Del) 31 and 4374/Mum/2005 G) Mafatlas Fines Spg. And Mfg Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 69 Taxman 385 (Bom); H) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd (1980) 122 ITR 995 (Bom) I) Hindus…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers, Iii, Income-Tax- Range 3(1), फनधभ/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Gujarat Ambuja Cements Tax-Range 3(1), Limited, 122, Maker फनधभ/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Chambers, Iii, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg0569P (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumen Adak & HarishFor Respondent: Shri K B Shukla

…: A) CIT V/s Gujarat Mineral Devp.Corp. (1981) 132 ITR 377(Guj); which is affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and reported in (2001) 249 ITR 787; B) National Organic Chemicals Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 203 ITR 410 (Bom) C) CIT V/s Associated Cementg Co. Ltd (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); D) CIT V/s Samsung India Ele.c Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 21 (Del) E) Add.CIT V/s Dhampur Sugar Mills (P) Ltd (2015) 370 ITR 194 (All); F) CIT V/s Saw Pipes Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 35 (Del) 31 and 4374/Mum/2005 G) Mafatlas Fines Spg. And Mfg Co.Ltd V/s CIT (1993) 69 Taxman 385 (Bom); H) CIT V/s Excel Industries Ltd (1980) 122 ITR 995 (Bom) I) Hindus…

Hindustan Ice Cold Storage Co Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 8, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.203/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Hindusthan Ice & Cold Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Kolkata Storage Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, C/O D.J.Shah & Co., Chowringhee Square, Kalyan Bhavan, Kolkata-69 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-20 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 6265 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata In Appeal No.32/Xxxii/11-12/R&T/Cir-8/Kol, Dated 07.11.2012, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.11.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its The Return Of Income On 27.11.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.16,45,711/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S. 143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Revenue Expenditure Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Repairs & Replacement Of Block Hindusthan Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…For this purpose, ld. AR relied on the following judgments :- Hindusthan Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd. i) Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., [1989] 177 ITR 377; ii) Assam Bengal Cement Companies Ltd. [1955] 27 ITR 34 iii) Associated Cement Companies ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 iv) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 1(SC) v) Tea Estate P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 535 (Cal) Saravana Spt. Mills (P) Ltd. 293 ITR 201 vi) 5.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the AO, which we have already noted in our earlier paragraphs and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brev…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

D.C.I.T.RG.8(3), Mumbai vs. Sanofi Synthelabo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7592/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 143(3)

…elevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a common sense way having regard to the business realities In a given case, the test of ‘enduring benefit’ might break down In CIT Vs Associated Cement Companies Ltd [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC) at p 262, this court said: As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Empire Jute Co Ltd Vs CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down It is not every ad…

D.C.I.T. 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sanofi Syntheabo (India) Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 6755/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 143(3)

…elevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a common sense way having regard to the business realities In a given case, the test of ‘enduring benefit’ might break down In CIT Vs Associated Cement Companies Ltd [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC) at p 262, this court said: As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Empire Jute Co Ltd Vs CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down It is not every ad…

ACIT RG 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sanofi Synthellabo (I) Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6720/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am

Section 143(3)

…elevant is the purpose of the outlay and its intended object and effect, considered in a common sense way having regard to the business realities In a given case, the test of ‘enduring benefit’ might break down In CIT Vs Associated Cement Companies Ltd [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC) at p 262, this court said: As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Empire Jute Co Ltd Vs CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down It is not every ad…