CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd.

254 ITR 201High Court2002#3573 most cited

What is CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. authority for?

Lump sum payments for lease, even for an extended period, can be considered revenue expenditure if they substitute for revenue expenditure. Payments that substitute for revenue expenditure are generally treated as revenue expenditure.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. · 254 ITR 201 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · lease payment · lump sum payment · enduring benefit · section 37(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DDASection 37(1)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37previous yeartransfercompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd.

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2014-15 Mumbai International Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Airport Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – Chhatrpati Shivaji 400020. International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) A.Y:2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 2(2)(1) Vs. Mumbai International Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Airport Ltd., New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 1St Floor, Terminal-1B, 400020. Chhatrpati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400099. Pan/Gir No. Aaecm6285C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabha Soparkar Virtually Appeared Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand V Mahadeokar, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.08.2025 In The Case Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessment In The Present Case Was Originally Completed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2017. Since The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Arise Out Of The Same Appellate Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35D

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenue expenditure”. 8.14 Looking to these f…

KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 177 / 2024HC Delhi13 Mar 2024

…business purposes and hence Revenue Expenditure? g. Did not the Tribunal err in law in not following the judgment of the High Court in Madars Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802, CIT vs. Gemini Arts P. Ltd reported in 254 ITR 201. And JCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd reported in 227 CTR (Guj) 206 while disallowing the amortization of lease premium? h. Whether the Tribunal erred in not following the principle of consistency from year to year laid down in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT(193ITR 321@329) while disallowing the amortization of lease pr…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WYETH LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYETH LEDERLE LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pfizer Limited v. ACIT- Special Range 23 (Earlier known as Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now the DCIT-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 PAN: AAACP3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT- LTU v. M/s. Wyeth Limited 28th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly known as wyeth Lederle Ltd) RBC Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumb…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…respect of buildings, which are fixed assets, taken on lease would constitute revenue expenditure. Whatever may be the period of lease, the annual payment will be only revenue in nature. In fact the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd, 254 ITR 201, following the Apex Court in CIT v. Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd, 233 ITR 468 (sq, has held that upfront payment of future rent for 47 years would still be revenue expenditure. (iii) In the case of lease of immovable property, the Supreme Court has held that any premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment…

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…n respect of buildings, which are fixed assets, taken on lease would constitute revenue expenditure. Whatever may be the period of lease, the annual payment will be only revenue in nature. In fact the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v: Gemini Am (P) Ltd, 254 ITR 201, following the Apex Court in CJT v. Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd, 233 ITR 468 (sq, has held that upfront payment of future rent for 41 years would still be revenue expenditure. In the case of lease of immovable property, the Supreme Court has held that any premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment bin no…

INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…n respect of buildings, which are fixed assets, taken on lease would constitute revenue expenditure. Whatever may be the period of lease, the annual payment will be only revenue in nature. In fact the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v: Gemini Am (P) Ltd, 254 ITR 201, following the Apex Court in CJT v. Madras Auto Services Pvt. Ltd, 233 ITR 468 (sq, has held that upfront payment of future rent for 41 years would still be revenue expenditure. In the case of lease of immovable property, the Supreme Court has held that any premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment bin no…

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…se the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gemini Arts (P) Ltd 254 ITR 201 . 9.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has filed a copy of the lease deed under reference. In terms of the lease deed, the assessee has made following payments to GNIDA: one-time lease premium of ₹ 2,83,56,515/- (a) commuted one time lease rent of ₹ 77,98,042/- (b) 9.7 As far as payment…

NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…se the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gemini Arts (P) Ltd 254 ITR 201 . 9.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has filed a copy of the lease deed under reference. In terms of the lease deed, the assessee has made following payments to GNIDA: one-time lease premium of ₹ 2,83,56,515/- (a) commuted one time lease rent of ₹ 77,98,042/- (b) 9.7 As far as payment…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…se the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gemini Arts (P) Ltd 254 ITR 201 . 9.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has filed a copy of the lease deed under reference. In terms of the lease deed, the assessee has made following payments to GNIDA: one-time lease premium of ₹ 2,83,56,515/- (a) commuted one time lease rent of ₹ 77,98,042/- (b) 9.7 As far as payment…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…se the annual rent was only one rupee and the premium paid was nothing but “advance rent”. The ITA Nos. 5524 & 5525/Del/2013 landed Counsel of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gemini Arts (P) Ltd 254 ITR 201 . 9.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee has filed a copy of the lease deed under reference. In terms of the lease deed, the assessee has made following payments to GNIDA: one-time lease premium of ₹ 2,83,56,515/- (a) commuted one time lease rent of ₹ 77,98,042/- (b) 9.7 As far as payment…

M/S. MULTITUDE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2722/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) M/S. Multitude Infrastructure Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Ece House, Income Tax, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Circle – 17(1) New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi (Pan : Aafcm 5511 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Bansal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 11.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2019

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…re. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 124 ITR 1(SC) b) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. 172 ITR 257(SC) c) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. 254 ITR 201 (Madras) d) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Pharmaceutical India Ltd. 329 ITR 479 e) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [233 ITR 468 (SC)] f) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. H.M.T. Ltd. 203 ITR 820 4 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the payment during the year relates to…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…n of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute’s case (124 ITR 1). ii. CIT v Madras Auto Services P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. iii. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34. iv. CIT V HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820. v. CIT v. Gemini Arts P Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) vi. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. vii. CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 296 ITR 702. viii. Amway India Enterprises v DCIT 111 ITD 112 (Del) (SB) 5. Regarding payment of sum of Rs. 45.5 crores to AAI in respect of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) under clause 5.4 of OMDA, the assessee submitted that under the terms o…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…n of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute’s case (124 ITR 1). ii. CIT v Madras Auto Services P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. iii. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 34. iv. CIT V HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820. v. CIT v. Gemini Arts P Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) vi. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468. vii. CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. 296 ITR 702. viii. Amway India Enterprises v DCIT 111 ITD 112 (Del) (SB) 5. Regarding payment of sum of Rs. 45.5 crores to AAI in respect of capital work-in-progress (CWIP) under clause 5.4 of OMDA, the assessee submitted that under the terms o…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI INTERNAIOTNAL AIRPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…e fact that the payment was made in lump sum for the entire duration of the lease does not alter the character of it being revenue expenditure. 8.13 The appellant has also brought to my notice the decision in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Private Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 201. The 62 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Madras High Court relying on the above judgment of the Supreme Court has allowed the claim of a lump sum payment of lease as revenue expenditure. I find from these two decisions that the principle which emerges is that "whatever substitutes for revenue expenditure should normally be considered as revenu…

DCIT,ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA, ROURKELA vs. M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…i or in instalments distributed over a definite period. Where, however, thi transaction is not one for acquisition of the goodwill, but for the right to use it, the expenditure would be revenue expenditure." In the case of CIT v. Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201(MAD.) [2003] 128 TAXMAN 105 (MAD.), it has been observed as under: "The assessee which had leasehold for 48 years chose to pay with the consent of the lessor the rent for 47 years in the assessment year 1981- 82. The lease was for a period of 48 years from 18-2-1980, and the lump sum payment was made on 22-%1980. The terms of the lease did not c…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. (254 ITR 201) — Cited in 33 Judgments | BharatTax