CIT v. Dasaprakash

114 ITR 210High Court1978#12032 most cited
8

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Dasaprakash

Nanu Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Margao vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1., Margao

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 394/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nder the category of ‘revenue expenditure’ in nature to be allowed, as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, Act. In the aforementioned decision, the Division Bench followed the said assessees own case viz CIT Vs. Dasaprakash [reported in (1978) 114 ITR 210 (Madras). 14. In the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mac Charles (India) Limited [reported in (2015) 233 Taxman 0177], the assessee, carrying on the business of hotel, incurred expenses under repairs and maintenance of the hotel building. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure. The http://www.judis.nic.i…

Nanu Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Margao vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1., Margao

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 393/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nder the category of ‘revenue expenditure’ in nature to be allowed, as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, Act. In the aforementioned decision, the Division Bench followed the said assessees own case viz CIT Vs. Dasaprakash [reported in (1978) 114 ITR 210 (Madras). 14. In the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mac Charles (India) Limited [reported in (2015) 233 Taxman 0177], the assessee, carrying on the business of hotel, incurred expenses under repairs and maintenance of the hotel building. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenditure. The http://www.judis.nic.i…

M/S.Kovilakam Hotel P Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…hinery and therefore, the expenditure incurred was held to be a capital expenditure. 7.8 The following judicial pronouncements are in favour of the assessee: i) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT(Central), Madras vs. Dasaprakasha reported in 114 ITR 210 had held that periodical expenditure incurred with a view to beautify the premises is not a capital expenditure. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Court reads as follows: ` “These items of expenditure were incurred with a view to beautify the premises obviously with a view to keep the place fit for the purpose for which persons assembled in…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1188/2017HC Delhi22 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…by the ITA 1184/2017, 1185/2017 & 1188/2017 Page 3 CIT (Appeals). 2. The ITAT relied upon several judgments of various High Courts, especially, those judgments that dealt with repairs and maintenance in the case of Hotel Properties (CIT versus Dasaprakash : 114 ITR 210(MAD); Asian Hotels Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax : (2006) 104 ITJ 921 etc.) 3. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s finding on this aspect cannot be faulted. 4. The Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, CIT 177 ITR377 enunciates the principles that having regard to the very similitude of the business…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1185/2017HC Delhi22 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…by the ITA 1184/2017, 1185/2017 & 1188/2017 Page 3 CIT (Appeals). 2. The ITAT relied upon several judgments of various High Courts, especially, those judgments that dealt with repairs and maintenance in the case of Hotel Properties (CIT versus Dasaprakash : 114 ITR 210(MAD); Asian Hotels Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax : (2006) 104 ITJ 921 etc.) 3. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s finding on this aspect cannot be faulted. 4. The Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, CIT 177 ITR377 enunciates the principles that having regard to the very similitude of the business…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1184/2017HC Delhi22 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…by the ITA 1184/2017, 1185/2017 & 1188/2017 Page 3 CIT (Appeals). 2. The ITAT relied upon several judgments of various High Courts, especially, those judgments that dealt with repairs and maintenance in the case of Hotel Properties (CIT versus Dasaprakash : 114 ITR 210(MAD); Asian Hotels Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax : (2006) 104 ITJ 921 etc.) 3. This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s finding on this aspect cannot be faulted. 4. The Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, CIT 177 ITR377 enunciates the principles that having regard to the very similitude of the business…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ular up gradation. He further referred that Rs. 5 to 7 crores is the annual repair and maintenance expenditure of the assessee. He reiterated all the submissions made before the ld CIT(A), and also referred to the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Dasaprakash.: 114 ITR 210 (MAD) b. CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD) c. CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. [2004] 136 Taxman 312/265 ITR 109 (Uttaranchal) d. CIT Vs. MAC Charles (India) Ltd. 233 Taxman 177 (karn) e. DCIT Vs. Indo Continental Hotel and Resorts Ltd 321 ITR 610 (Rajasthan) f. United Hotel Limited Vs. ACIt ITA No. 3225/Del/2012 (Del Tribunal) Rambagh…

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ular up gradation. He further referred that Rs. 5 to 7 crores is the annual repair and maintenance expenditure of the assessee. He reiterated all the submissions made before the ld CIT(A), and also referred to the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Dasaprakash.: 114 ITR 210 (MAD) b. CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD) c. CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. [2004] 136 Taxman 312/265 ITR 109 (Uttaranchal) d. CIT Vs. MAC Charles (India) Ltd. 233 Taxman 177 (karn) e. DCIT Vs. Indo Continental Hotel and Resorts Ltd 321 ITR 610 (Rajasthan) f. United Hotel Limited Vs. ACIt ITA No. 3225/Del/2012 (Del Tribunal) Rambagh…

CIT v. Dasaprakash (114 ITR 210) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax