CIT v. Fascel Ltd.

221 CTR 305High Court2009#5468 most cited

What is CIT v. Fascel Ltd. authority for?

Spectrum Usage Charges (SUC) and Wireless Planning Commission charges are allowable as revenue expenditure for the business. These payments are necessary for running the business and do not create an enduring benefit.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Fascel Ltd. · SUC · Spectrum Usage Charges · Wireless Planning Commission charges · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit · section 37(1) · section 40(a)(ia) · section 194H

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 35ABBSection 40(a)(ia)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 80iesection 35(1)(iv)section 92(1)section 10(2a)section 92asection 35(1)legal expensessection 39section 194henduring benefitdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)

Judgments citing CIT v. Fascel Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4722/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 17(1), Vs. M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., New Delhi. C-4B, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacs 4457 Q ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra Adv. Ms. Nena Singh Adv. Respondent By : Shri Nihor Ranjan Pandey Add. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2015. Date Of Order : 30/12/2015. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M..: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.5.2013 Passed By The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi Pertaining To Ay 2008-09. Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised: 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Providing Cellular Mobile Telephony Network In The Telecom Circle Of Delhi. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 5,81,140/-. The Assessment Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs. 537,13,54,673/-, Inter Alia, By Making Following Additions/ Disallowances: - Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Rs. 6,24,87,988 - Disallowance Of Advertisement Expenditure Rs. 9,17,179/-

For Appellant: Sh. P. Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nihor Ranjan Pandey Add. CIT (DR)

…In addition to this amount, a deduction amounting to INR 17,74,24,525/- is allowed in respect of amounts similarly treated as capital expenditure in earlier years.” 17. Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CST Vs. Vs. Fascel Ltd. 221 CTR 305 (supra) allowed the assessee’s claim. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. The facts are not disputed. The decision relied upon by the AO in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. was rendered in entirely different factual matrix. The impugned amount was paid as a protection fee and was not a pa…