CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited

137 ITR 652High Court1982#6251 most cited

What is CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited authority for?

Expenses incurred for drawing up and registering a lease deed, including stamp duty and professional fees, are revenue expenditure if they do not involve any premium and would have been the same regardless of the lease period (provided it's more than one year). The period of the lease does not determine if the asset is of an enduring nature.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited · 137 ITR 652 · lease deed registration expenses · stamp duty · solicitors' fees · revenue expenditure · Section 37(1) · Bombay High Court · lease period · enduring nature · premium

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 2(14)Section 37(1)Section 43B

Judgments citing CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 PAN: AAACB5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11/02/2…

ART HOUSING FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7635/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2016-17 Art Housing Finance (India) Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 3(1), 49, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Iv, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana-122015 (Pan: Aagcr4981A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, New Delhi Dated 18.07.2019 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-17 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Disallowance Of Commission Expense Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession. 2. Disallowance Of Stamp Duty Expenses Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession. 3. Disallowance Of Trademark Registration Expense Under The Head Profits & Gains From Business & Profession.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…related to the period of lease. This amount would have been incurred irrespective of the period of lease, be it 6 months or any lease period. It was further contended that on exactly similar facts the Bombay High Court in the acse of CIT vs. Cinecita (P) Ltd. 137 ITR 652 where the assessee incurred Rs. 10,700/- by way of registration fee, stamp duty and solicitors’ fees in connection with the drawing up of the lease deed and claimed deduction of the said amount as revenue expenditure. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the order of the authorities below on this issue. 4.1 We have given our thoughtful consideration t…

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)

…plied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd's case 113 87 (Bom). It was held that in their view the expenses were rightly considered by the Tribunal as being of revenue in nature. Similarly the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Cinceita Private Limited 137 ITR 652 considered the issue where the period of lease was 20 years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee. There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. Moreover, this expenditure would have been the same even…

PATAKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT,CIR-7(1). , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…n of section 37(1) of the Act is not proper and such view taken by the ld. PCIT liable to be set aside. The ld. AR to substantiate his claim relied on the two judicial pronouncements as under: a. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. 137 ITR 652 has held "The impugned expenditure did not involve any element of premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. It was incurred only to draw up and get registered an effective and proper lease deed and would have remained the same irrespective of the period of lease as long as it was more than one year. Further the period of lease itself could no…

GOLDMOHUR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX - 7, MUMBAI

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…63 of the Act. On merits, the ld. A.R in order to support his claim that the stamp duty on leasehold rights was allowable as a revenue expenditure under Sec. 37 of the Act relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Cinecita (P) Ltd.- [(1982) 137 ITR 652 (Bom)]. (ii) Richardson Hindustan ltd. Vs. CIT- [(1988) 169 ITR 516 (Bom)] (iii) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services P. Ltd.- [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. H.M.T. LTd. – [(1993) 203 ITR 820 (Karn)] (v) DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. – [(2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj)] (vi) ACIT Vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd.- [(2018) 89 taxmann.com 32…

FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5571/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Srhi Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 37Section 37(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B+SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5571 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Fiserv India Private Limited, Vs. ACIT, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi PAN: AACCR0787L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Srhi Sachit Jolly, Adv Shri Vasudevan, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 03/ 07/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Assessee filed ITA number 5571/Del…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.1738/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) & M/s. National Stock Vs. Addl. CIT, Rg. 7(1) Exchange of India Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan C-1, Block-G, Mumbai – 400 020 Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACN1797L .. (Respondent) Addl. CIT, Rg. 7(1) Vs. M/s. National Stock Exchange of Aaykar Bhavan India Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 C-1, Block-G, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACN1797L .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Per…

M/S R SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6506/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Chaddha, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(4)

…ew that the expenses towards registration of stamp duty and legal expenses incurred in connection therewith have to be considered in the light of the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. 20. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cinecita Pvt Ltd 137 ITR 652 has held “The impugned expenditure did not involve any element of premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. It was incurred only to draw up and get registered an effective and proper lease deed and would have remained the same irrespective of the period of lease as long as it was more than one year. Further, the period of lease itself could…

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1904/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Smt Aparna M. Agarwal, CIT.D.R
Section 251(1)(a)

…y capital assets. Therefore the same cannot be treated as capital in nature. Accordingly, we treat them as revenue expenses. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Cinceita (P) Ltd. reported in 137 ITR 652 wherein it was held as under: “The impugned expenditure did not involve any element of premium on the leasehold. It was incurred only to draw up and get registered an effective and proper lease deed and would have remained the same irrespective of the period of lease, as long as it was more than one year. Further, the period of lease by itself co…

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)

…plied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. case 113 877 (Bom). It was held that in their view the expenses were rightly considered by the Tribunal as being of revenue in nature. Similarly the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited 137 ITR 652 considered the issue where the period of lease was 20 years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee. There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. Moreover, this expenditure would have been the same even…

ZOETIS PHARMACEUTICALS RESEARCH P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 9145/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 10ASection 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 40

…ration of lease agreements is also in the nature of revenue expenditure as the assessee is not deriving any enduring benefit out of lease agreement. In this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Cinecita (P) Ltd 137 ITR 652 (Bom). Alternatively the assessee submitted that if the said expenditure is held to be capital in nature, depreciation ought to be allowed on the same. 9 7. Having heard both the sides and considered the materials available on record, we find that the expenditure incurred is in the nature of professional expenditure for Oracle migration and acco…

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

…d out on expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or profession of the assessee. It is observed that the Ld. CIT (A) has placed his reliance upon the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cincetia Pvt. Ltd reported in 137 ITR 652, which has been followed subsequently by Honble Madras High Court in the case of Shree Krishna Tiles and Potteries Madras Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 173 ITR 311. Hon’ble Madras High Court in Srikrishna Tiles (supra), has disagreed with the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hotel Raj Mahal vs. CIT reported in 152 ITR 218.…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS WHOLESALE SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6081/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56Section 57

…the appellant has submitted that stamp duty was paid for lease transactions and not for purchase of any capital asset. For the same appellant have relied upon decisions given in case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) again. I have gone through the same and noted that same are in favour of appellant. Further as A.O. has not disputed the fact that these lease are long term lease and the licence fee is not recurring in nature, I am in agreement with appellant that in absence of any such finding same cannot be disallowed. Accordingly the addition made of Rs.…

INDIABULLS WHOLESALE SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5732/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56Section 57

…the appellant has submitted that stamp duty was paid for lease transactions and not for purchase of any capital asset. For the same appellant have relied upon decisions given in case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) again. I have gone through the same and noted that same are in favour of appellant. Further as A.O. has not disputed the fact that these lease are long term lease and the licence fee is not recurring in nature, I am in agreement with appellant that in absence of any such finding same cannot be disallowed. Accordingly the addition made of Rs.…

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIABULLS RETAIL SERVICE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1165/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56Section 57

…the appellant has submitted that stamp duty was paid for lease transactions and not for purchase of any capital asset. For the same appellant have relied upon decisions given in case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) again. I have gone through the same and noted that same are in favour of appellant. Further as A.O. has not disputed the fact that these lease are long term lease and the licence fee is not recurring in nature, I am in agreement with appellant that in absence of any such finding same cannot be disallowed. Accordingly the addition made of Rs.…

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

…lied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd’s case 113 877 (Bom). It was held that in their view the expenses were rightly considered by the Tribunal as being of revenue in nature. Similarly the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Cinceita Private Limited 137 ITR 652 considered the issue where the period of lease was 20 years. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee. There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. Moreover, this expenditure would have been the same even…

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

…lied in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd’s case 113 877 (Bom). It was held that in their view the expenses were rightly considered by the Tribunal as being of revenue in nature. Similarly the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Cinceita Private Limited 137 ITR 652 considered the issue where the period of lease was 20 years. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that it must also be noted that the expenditure was in respect of stamp duty, registration charges and professional fee. There was no element of the premium in the amount claimed as expenditure. Moreover, this expenditure would have been the same even…

GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2220/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2002-03 The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Additional Cit 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, Range 2(1), M.G. Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan/Gir No. Aaact5004A Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 41Section 80H

…e allowed as it is a business expense. The assessee relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. General Insurance Corporation 286 ITR 232 (SC) and the Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cinecita (P.) Ltd. 137 ITR 652 (Bom.) Page 9 of 17 10 Assessment year: - 2002-03 16. Ld. DR submitted that these are capital expenditure which is linked towards the executing of the agreement for capital subsidy and hence the same has rightly been disallowed. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. We are of the conside…

CIT v. Cinceita Private Limited (137 ITR 652) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax