CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd.

202 ITR 942Reported decision#10326 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for rebuilding a wall demolished due to a road-widening necessity is considered revenue expenditure as it is in the nature of repair for running the business, not the creation of a new capital asset.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. · 202 ITR 942 · revenue expenditure · repair vs capital expenditure · necessity for business · demolition of wall · rebuilding expenses · Gujarat High Court

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd.

DCIT. Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Dcit Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times Of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [Pan No. : Aacct6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ial to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test......". In the case of CIT V/s. Bharat Suryoday Co. Ltd. 202 ITR 942 the assessee was required to demolish one side wall around its premises by the Municipality for the purpose of widening the road. Thus, the expenses incurred for demolition of wall and rebuilding the same was held to be revenue expenditure. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that since the wall was required to be build as a necessity for running…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 799/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nabros Pharma Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Vadodara

ITA 551/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(2), (Tpo), Baroda

ITA 2061/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1197/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

M/S. Fag Bearings India Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-I, Baroda

ITA 1453/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.R
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(9)Section 92C

…7 Other appeals (By Assessee ) Asstt. Yeasr 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 66 63.1 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

…d mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.” 33.2 Regarding this we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 202 ITR 942 wherein it was held as under: “An old wall was required to be rebuilt because of demolition. Thus, the expenditure which was incurred was more in the nature of repairs rather than creation of a new capital asset. A wall was required to be built by the assessee as a necessity for running his business. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding…

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)

…td.) , A.Y : 2009-10 1. CIT Vs. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 65] (Raj) 2. Gunter Merchant Cotton Press Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO [108 ITR 620](A.P.) 3. CIT Vs. Bhupinder Flour Mills P. Ltd [206 Taxman 123] (P&H) 4. CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd [202 ITR 942] (Guj) 5. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing CO. Ltd. Vs. CIT [30 ITR 338] (Bom) 6. CIT Vs. Chogule and Co. Ltd. [214 ITR 523] (Bom) 7. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills [66 ITR 710] (SC) 49. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessee before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) made detailed submissions along w…

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)

…td.) , A.Y : 2009-10 1. CIT Vs. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. [216 CTR 65] (Raj) 2. Gunter Merchant Cotton Press Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO [108 ITR 620](A.P.) 3. CIT Vs. Bhupinder Flour Mills P. Ltd [206 Taxman 123] (P&H) 4. CIT Vs. Bharat Suryodaya Mills Co. Ltd [202 ITR 942] (Guj) 5. New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing CO. Ltd. Vs. CIT [30 ITR 338] (Bom) 6. CIT Vs. Chogule and Co. Ltd. [214 ITR 523] (Bom) 7. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills [66 ITR 710] (SC) 49. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessee before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) made detailed submissions along w…