CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd.

72 ITR 319High Court1969#18222 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd.

Rajendra L.Agarwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, (International Taxation -I), Pune

ITA 2330/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &

Section 54F

…ese were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh Co- operative Housing Society, Pune. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., 72 ITR 319, the Ld. Counsel submitted that legal expenses incurred in connection with the asset and title search verification etc. constitutes allowable expenditure as part of the cost of acquisition. It was so decided relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 36 ITR 215 (SC). Further, the Ld. Counsel for the asses…

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)`, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…e ascertained from the facts of each case. If the object or purpose is to enhance, the existing business, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pil…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…or purpose is to defend or maintain existing title to the capital asset of the business of the assessee, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pil…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…t or purpose is to defend or maintain existing title to the capital asset of the business of the assessee, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); 9 Wadhwa Constructions c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. ClT, (1966) 62 lTR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. ClT, (1964) 52 lTR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. ClT, (1962) 46 lTR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. ClT, (1957) 31 lTR 259, 266-…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…t or purpose is to defend or maintain existing title to the capital asset of the business of the assessee, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pil…