CIT v. Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency

118 ITR 42High Court1979#12091 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency

M/S. KHADIM INDIA LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 603/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)

…counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the higher courts. In this regard we note the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where he matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties. The Hon'ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not constitute startling difference as would appeal to us to apply a different test than the one which we applied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd…

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARSHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MUMBAI

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

ITA 1649/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 69

…es towards fee paid with regard to Dabhol Project. He referred to page No.340 of the paper book. He relied upon the case of Tapadia Tools(372ITR 605),Raychem RPG Ltd.(346 ITR138), Richardson Hindustan Ltd.(169 ITR 516)and Bombay Cycle and Motor agencies Ltd. (118 ITR 42).DR supported the order of the FAA . 7.3.We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the judgment of Tapadia Tools, delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court(supra)and relied upon by the FAA has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.In the matter of Raychem RPG Ltd.(supra),the Hon'ble Bombay high Court has held that of the software fac…

M/S. HICKSON & DADAJEE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(1)(4),, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh

…is allowable. In support of such contention, the Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– 4 M/s. Hickson & Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. i) Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, 111 taxman.com 316 (2019); ii) CIT v/s Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd., 118 ITR 42 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Gopal Associates, [2009] 222 CTR 307 (HP); and iv) Gujarat Machinery Mfg. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1995] 211 ITR 1010. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of decisi…

M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2687/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…period of five years. In view of this court's decision in Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 516, in which, following the earlier decisions in CIT v. Hanftst Pharmaceutical Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 877, CIT v. Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42 and CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652, this court held that the period of lease was not of much relevance and that the expenditure incurred for acquiring premises on lease was allowable as a business deduction, we hold that the amounts advanced by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring the factory on lease is an advance for the pu…

DCIT,CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHADIMINDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 108/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8(1), V/S. M/S Khadim India Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th 6, Kankaria Estate, Little Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Russel Street,Kolakta-71 Sq. Kolkta-69 [Pan No.Aabck 3341 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwala, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1),, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 20.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Follows:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,72,493/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Expenditure Under The Head Of Stamp Duty & Registration Charges. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.10,94,854/-On Account Of Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation At The Rate Of 60% On Asset Namely Scanner & Router. 3. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 143(3)

…both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the higher courts. In this regard we note the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of leasehold properties. The Hon'ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not constitute startling difference as would appeal to us to apply a different test than the one which we applied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INTUIT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1892/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 246ASection 92BSection 92C

…as to whether the asset or advantage secured was an enduring nature.” 7.6 While holding so Hon’ble Bombay High Court placed its reliance on CIT vs. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd reported in 113 ITR 877 and CIT vs. Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd., reported in 118 ITR 42. 7.7 Respectfully following the afore stated decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing the claim of the assessee to treat the stamp duty and registration expenses as revenue expenditure. 7.8 Accordingly the ground No. 2 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 8. In the result appe…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KHADIM INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 2571/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

…counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the higher courts. In this regard we note the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties. The Hon’ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not constitute startling difference as would appeal to us to apply a different test than the ITA No.2368/Kol/2013&2571/Kol/2013-M/s.Khadim Indi…

M/S KHADIM INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2368/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

…counsel and perused the records. We find that the issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the higher courts. In this regard we note the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency 118 ITR 42 (Bom) where the matter pertains to treatment of brokerage of stamp duty paid for acquisition of lease hold properties. The Hon’ble High Court held that the period of the lease was one of ten years, it does not constitute startling difference as would appeal to us to apply a different test than the ITA No.2368/Kol/2013&2571/Kol/2013-M/s.Khadim Indi…