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.

Asst.C.I.T., Hubli vs. M/S Bellad & Co, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…sset. Therefore, according to him, expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this submission, he relied on the following decisions: i. Mercantile And Marine Services vs. CIT (233 ITR 257) ii. CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (172 ITR 257) iii. CIT vs. Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. (345 ITR 407) ITA No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 13 8.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8.3 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has incurred expenditure in resp…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1004/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubli. … Appellant Pa No: Aabfb6457D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent & Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubballi. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.R.Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.N.Bipin, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Hubli, Dated 26/02/2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 2 Of 13 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealers In Hmt Tractors, Spares, Hero Honda Motors-Cycles & Dealing In Sony Products & Also In The Business Of Generation Of Power Through Wind Mills. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Was Filed On 30/09/2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.51,74,070/-. Against Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle 1(1), Hubli, Vide Order Dated 14/03/2013 Passed Under Section 143(3) Income-Tax Act, 1961 ['The Act' For Short] At A Total Income Of Rs.1,51,04,807/- After Making Several Disallowances. One Of Those Disallowances Relates To Expenditure Incurred On Renovation Of Showroom Of Rs.17,18,671/- Treating It Capital Expenditure Allowed Depreciation At 10%. He Also Made Addition Of Rs.29,02,161/- As Deemed Dividend Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Act. The Ao Also Disallowed Deduction Under Section 80Ia(5) Of The Act As, According To The Ao, After Setting Off Of Brought Forward Loss, There Was No Eligible Profit For Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…sset. Therefore, according to him, expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this submission, he relied on the following decisions: i. Mercantile And Marine Services vs. CIT (233 ITR 257) ii. CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (172 ITR 257) iii. CIT vs. Lucent Technologies Hindustan Ltd. (345 ITR 407) ITA No.1004 & 1029/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 13 8.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8.3 We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has incurred expenditure in resp…

M/S Bellad & Company, Hubli vs. DCIT, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1003/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Bellad & Co., Vidyanagar, Hubballi. … Appellant Pa No: Aaacb7277M Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubballi. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Bipin, JCIT(DR)
Section 32

…ention of the assessee that the assessee had constructed a temporary structure for office as well as workshop on the leased premises. The same may be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this, he relied on the following decisions: i. CIT Vs ACC Ltd (172 ITR 257)(SC); ii. CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services Ltd. (233 ITR 468)(SC) iii. CIT vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. (293 ITR 432)(Madras) iv. CIT Vs Hari Vignesh Pvt Ltd 281 ITR 338 v. CIT Vs Dr. A.M.Singhwi (302 ITR 26) vi. Herbert International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (103 TTJ 78) On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower…

Lavino Kapur Copttons P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2135/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. 121/122, Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacl 0824C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Surinder MehraFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)

…following decision brought to his notice:- i) CIT vs. Shree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. 207 ITR 826(Kerala) ii) Vanaja Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT 208 ITR 161 (Kerala) iii) Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) v) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1(SC) f) That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 160 ITR 857 (Delhi). g) That the said decision of the Delhi High Court related to replacement of furniture and r…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…xpenditure is related to the carrying on, or conduct of the business, it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit making process and therefore revenue in nature: • Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 124 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.: 172 ITR 257 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Arvind Mills Ltd v. CIT: 97 ITR 422 (SC) 51 ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) • DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.Venkata Krishna Mohan

ITTA/325/2005HC Telangana07 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…essee, it was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT[1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CITv. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.[1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd.[2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi).” 7.9 For the reasons stated above, disallowance made of Rs. 27,22,514/- out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 34,03,142/- is deleted. Grounds raised by the appellant are allowed. 21 ITA No.709/D…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…essee, it was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT[1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CITv. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.[1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd.[2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi).” 7.9 For the reasons stated above, disallowance made of Rs. 27,22,514/- out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 34,03,142/- is deleted. Grounds raised by the appellant are allowed. 21 ITA No.709/D…

ACIT, Circle-3, Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metalics Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 956/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…of Rs.3,50,00,000/- incurred on railway sidings was claimed by the assessee as deduction being revenue expenditure by placing reliance, inter alia, on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Associated Cement Co. Limited reported in 172 ITR 257. This claim of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the expenditure of Rs.3.50 crores incurred by the assessee was going to give enduring benefit of ten years. Accordingly, he allowed the expenditure in question incurred by the assessee on railway sidings only to the extent of 1/10th, i.e. Rs.35,00,000…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Royal Orchid Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.846/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. M/S. Royal Orchid Hotels P. Ltd, No.1, Gold Avenue, Adjoining Kga Gold Course, Old Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore 560 008 .. Respondent Pan : Aabcr0111M Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 29.10.2015 Pronounced On : 10.11.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

…ITA.846/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.846/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore .. Appellant v. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels P. Ltd, No.1, Gold Avenue, Adjoining KGA Gold Course, Old Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore 560 008 .. Respondent PAN : AABCR0111M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 29.10.2015 Pronounced on : 10.11.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE,…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ant 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 v. 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. v. 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 ev…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA-614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ant 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 v. 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. v. 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 ev…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

….H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC), amount paid as contribution for construction of roads in an area around the factory under a scheme was held to be revenue in nature. CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC) was quoted and observed that the expenditure incurred to concrete the main road was revenue as the installation and accessories were assets of the municipality. This was despite the fact that the assessee had secured immunity from liability to pay municipal rates and taxes for 15 years. In these cases, the expenditure had been incurr…

CIT I vs. Acl Wireless Ltd

ITA/254/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 260A

…======================================================================= ITA 254/2013 & 313/2013 Page 1 of 23 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 23rd September, 2013 Judgment pronounced on: 10th December, 2013 + ITA 254/2013 & 313/2013 CIT - I ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate. Versus ACL WIRELESS LTD. ..... Respondent Through Nemo CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUST…

M/S Bharti Televentures Ltd vs. Addl./Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/1395/2006HC Delhi18 Dec 2012

Bench: The Tribunal. The Questions Of Law Sought To Be Urged Are: - (I) Whether The Tribunal Fell Into Error In Holding That `1,35,05,869/- Paid By The Assessee As Installation Expenditure By The Assessee Was Capital In Nature & Has To Be Treated As Such In Assessment Proceedings?

…ight of the decisions which laid down the test as to whether commercially, they conferred any advantage. In support of the submissions learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as CIT v. Associated Cement Company Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held as under: - 2012:DHC:7539-DB ITA 1395/2006 & 1656/210 Page 3 of 10 “…..nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 957 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 & CIT Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC), proceed to hold that the expenditure did not fall in the capital field. 6. This Court has considered these submissions and the issue which was sought to be urged has been re-visited on a number of occasions by various Courts. There is no doubt that in Madras Auto Services case (supra), the Court had observed that there is no single…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 956 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 & CIT Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC), proceed to hold that the expenditure did not fall in the capital field. 6. This Court has considered these submissions and the issue which was sought to be urged has been re-visited on a number of occasions by various Courts. There is no doubt that in Madras Auto Services case (supra), the Court had observed that there is no single…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/957/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 & CIT Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC), proceed to hold that the expenditure did not fall in the capital field. 6. This Court has considered these submissions and the issue which was sought to be urged has been re-visited on a number of occasions by various Courts. There is no doubt that in Madras Auto Services case (supra), the Court had observed that there is no single…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/956/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 & CIT Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC), proceed to hold that the expenditure did not fall in the capital field. 6. This Court has considered these submissions and the issue which was sought to be urged has been re-visited on a number of occasions by various Courts. There is no doubt that in Madras Auto Services case (supra), the Court had observed that there is no single…

Sri S M Dayanand S/O Sri Madival Sankappa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

ITA/1357/2006HC Karnataka04 Sept 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 143(2)Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. MANOHAR I.T.A.NO.1357/2006 BETWEEN: SRI S.M.DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O.SRI.MADIVAL SANKAPPA PROP. CEASER’S RESTAURANT 9/1, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE. … APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.KAMALADHAR, ADV) THIS ITA IS FILED U/S 260A OF T…