CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd.

264 ITR 180High Court2003#3569 most cited

What is CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure that has been deferred in the books of accounts is to be treated as revenue expenditure in the year in which it is incurred, irrespective of its treatment in the books of account.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd. · 264 ITR 180 · revenue expenditure · deferred expenditure · accounting treatment · books of account · voluntary retirement scheme expenses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 80GSection 80JJAASection 90Section 135Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80absection 40a(9)section 10(33)minimum alternate taxsection 80hhcsection 43(1)section 80hhsection 145aroyalty incomeenduring benefitsection 10bunabsorbed depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhor Industries Ltd.

DCIT 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sharda Worldwide Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3804/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Kunal Beswal/Anuj KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja -DR
Section 254(1)

…s and claiming depreciation in the earlier years is concerned,it is suffice to say that entries made in the books of accounts do not decide the true nature of expenditure.We would like to rely upon the case of Bhor Industries of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (264 ITR 180). 5.2.The Hon’ble Courts are of the view that the issue of capital versus revenue expenditure has to be seen from the angle of an assessee rather than an AO.In the case of Edward Keventer (P) Ltd.,the honourable Calcutta High Court has held as follows : 6 3804, 3805/M/16;C.O.115/16-Sharda Worldwide Exports P.Ltd. “The legitimate business needs…

M/S. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corp. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4965/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Saini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 53A

…sessee’s own case 10 ITA.No.4965/Del/2013 Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corp. Ltd. vs.ACIT for asstt. Year 2005-06 (Supra), disallowance of interest for the year under assessment is not sustainable. 12. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case cited as Bhor Industries 264 ITR 180 (Bom) held that VRS expenditure was incurred to save the expenses and it was to be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it was incurred and expenditure could not be spread over the number of years and as such the allowable expenditure in the instant case as the major components of the interest claimed by assessee i.e. Rs. 14,87,50,000…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.P.Tolani, Hon’Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Modipon Ltd, Ward-5(4), Hapur Road, Modi Nagar, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan:Aaacm2069E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…his ground. 8. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee said that the claim is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and he relied up on following decision of various courts. a. CIT V KJS India Private Limited 340 ITR 380 ( Delhi) b. CIT V Bhor Industries Limited 264 ITR 180 ( Bom) c. CIT V orient papers and Industries Limited 372 ITR 680 ( cal) d. CIT V Simpson & co Limited 230 ITR 703 e. CIT V Swan Mills Limited 39 Taxmann.com 112 ( Bom) 9. Ld DR relied on the order of AO as well as CIT (A) and submitted that claim is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as it is specifically allowable u/s 35DDA of the Income Tax Act…

M/S. Tata Chemical Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT RG. 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5897/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas and Shri Atul T SuraiyaFor Respondent: Mrs Vidisha Kalra
Section 35E

…ssue is covered in favour of the Assessee in Assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1996-97 in ITA No.6496 dated 17.8.2007, wherein, the Coordinate Bench following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. [264 ITR 180] allowed the claim of the Assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) and reject the ground of the Revenue. 23. Ground No.7 relates to allocation of interest expenses on the borrowings between business income and interest income from tax free bonds and dividend income for the purpose of the provisions of Section 14A. We…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4826/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ICICI Bank Ltd, (erstwhile ICICI Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 PAN: AAACT 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd, (erstwhile ICICI Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. PAN: AAACT 1398K Appellant .. Respondent .. Assessee by Ms.Arati Visanji, AR Revenue by .. Shri B. Prusheth, CIT DR .. Date of hearing 30-11-2016 Date…

Icici Bank Ltd vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4657/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ICICI Bank Ltd, (erstwhile ICICI Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 PAN: AAACT 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd, (erstwhile ICICI Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. PAN: AAACT 1398K Appellant .. Respondent .. Assessee by Ms.Arati Visanji, AR Revenue by .. Shri B. Prusheth, CIT DR .. Date of hearing 30-11-2016 Date…

M/S. the Hindustan Sewing & Weaving Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this account

ITA 3822/MUM/2003[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, D.R
Section 10(3)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 45Section 55

…fore us. 10. Various arguments have been made before us. The ld. DR has supported the stand taken by the AO and on the other hand, the assessee has supported the view of the CIT(A) and relies on the judgment in the case of ‘CIT V Bhor Industries Ltd.’ (2003) 264 ITR 180 (Bombay). We have heard the contention of both the sides and the perused case law cited before us. We hereby quote the relevant portion of ratio of decision in the case of “CIT v Bhor Industries Ltd.” (supra) delivered by jurisdictional Bombay High Court:- “It is well settled that, ordinarily, revenue expenditure, which is incurred wholly and exc…

DCIT Cir. 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mill Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this account

ITA 3622/MUM/2003[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar, D.R
Section 10(3)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 45Section 55

…fore us. 10. Various arguments have been made before us. The ld. DR has supported the stand taken by the AO and on the other hand, the assessee has supported the view of the CIT(A) and relies on the judgment in the case of ‘CIT V Bhor Industries Ltd.’ (2003) 264 ITR 180 (Bombay). We have heard the contention of both the sides and the perused case law cited before us. We hereby quote the relevant portion of ratio of decision in the case of “CIT v Bhor Industries Ltd.” (supra) delivered by jurisdictional Bombay High Court:- “It is well settled that, ordinarily, revenue expenditure, which is incurred wholly and exc…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Siemes Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7181/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.7181/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2000-01 Dy. CIT -7(2) M/s. Siemens Ltd. Room No.624, M.K. Road Vs 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. PAN:AAACS 0764 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.7298/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2000-01 M/s. Siemens Ltd. Dy. CIT -7(2) 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg Vs Room No.624, M.K. Road Mumb…

M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4155/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiin Ita No. 4155 & 4178/Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…is ground. 8. Before us Ld. AR of the assessee said that the claim is allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and he relied up on following decision of various courts. a. CIT V KJS India Private Limited 340 ITR 380 ( Delhi) b. CIT V Bhor Industries Limited 264 ITR 180 ( Bom) c. CIT V orient papers and Industries Limited 372 ITR 680 ( cal) d. CIT V Simpson & co Limited 230 ITR 703 e. CIT V Swan Mills Limited 39 Taxmann.com 112 ( Bom) 9. Ld DR relied on the order of AO as well as CIT (A) and submitted that claim is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as it is specifically allowable u/s 35DDA of the Income Tax Ac…

M/S. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Spl. RG. - 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4597/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4597/Mum/2005 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000)

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 35D

…12. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that an identical issue had come up before this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1998-99 and the Tribunal following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Bhore Industries Ltd (264 ITR 180) (Bom) allowed the claim of the assessee. 13. The ld. DR did not bring any cogent material to controvert the factual proposition submitted by the ld.AR. 14. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that the similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1998-99 and the T…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Vodafone Essar South Ltd

ITA/594/2014HC Delhi29 Oct 2014

…of B.S.C. Footwear Ltd. [(1970) 77 ITR 857, 860], the Income Tax law does not march step by step in the footprints of the accountancy profession.” It was held by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Bhor Industries Limited (2003) 264 ITR 180, “… If (sic, It) is well settled that, ordinarily, revenue expenditure, which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred and it cannot be spread over a number of years even though the assessee has written it off in its books over a period of years. It…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sbi Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/603/2014HC Delhi29 Sept 2014

Bench: The Tribunal, Relating To The Said Assessment Year. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up Ita No.603/2014. The 2014:Dhc:5128-Db

Section 260ASection 271(1)

…e of B.S.C. Footwear Ltd. [(1970) 77 ITR 857, 860], the Income Tax law does not march step by step in the footprints of the accountancy profession.” It was held by the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Bhor Industries Limited (2003) 264 ITR 180, “… If (sic, It) is well settled that, ordinarily, revenue expenditure, which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred and it cannot be spread over a number of years even though the assessee has written it off in its books over a period of years. It i…