CIT v. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd.

254 ITR 201High Court2002#3568 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 366,314 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.

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…Ind. Ltd.: 329 ITR 479 (Guj)- Revenue‘s SLP Dismissed in SLP No.33784/09 vide order dated 4.12.2009, reported at 325 ITR (st) 6.  CIT v. H. M.T. Ltd. (No. 2): 203 ITR 820 (Kar)  CIT v. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd.: 296 ITR 702 (Mad.)  CIT v. Gemini Arts P. Ltd.: 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) (SLP dismissed)  United Phosphorus Ltd. v. ACIT: [2015] 230 Taxman 596 (Gujarat)  M/s. Lupin Limited v. JCIT: ITA No.5088/Mum/2005 (Mum. Trib.)  Emerson Network Power (India) P Ltd v. ACIT: ITA No. 118/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.)  GMM Pfaudler Ltd. vs. JCIT: ITA No. 2627/Ahd/2008 (Ahd. Trib.) g) In view of the aforementioned legal position,…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d. Assessing Officer without expressing any specific reasons why he was rejecting the contention taken by the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 201 and CIT vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd 293 ITR 459 such lease advance payment could only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d. Assessing Officer without expressing any specific reasons why he was rejecting the contention taken by the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 201 and CIT vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd 293 ITR 459 such lease advance payment could only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasterners Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 675/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d. Assessing Officer without expressing any specific reasons why he was rejecting the contention taken by the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 201 and CIT vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd 293 ITR 459 such lease advance payment could only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC…

Sundram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. Addl.CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 591/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d. Assessing Officer without expressing any specific reasons why he was rejecting the contention taken by the assessee. As per the ld. Authorised Representative by virtue of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Gemini Arts Pvt. Ltd. 254 ITR 201 and CIT vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd 293 ITR 459 such lease advance payment could only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC…

Indiawin Sports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 5290/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5290&5291/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2010-2011) Indianwin Sports Private Vs. Acit, Cc-35, Room Limited, Court House, 3Rd No.104, Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 8195 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.C.S.Naik सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. In Both These Appeals The Assessee Is Aggrieved For Decline Of Annual Payment Being Franchise Fees Paid To Bcci To Participate In The Indian Premier League (Ipl) By Holding The Same As Capital In Nature For Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Owning, Managing & Operating 'Mumbai Indian' Team Of Indian Premier League (Ipl). The Assessee Has Been Granted Perpetual Franchisee For The 'Mumbai Indian' Team. The Assessee Is Franchise Holder Of Ipl I.E. Indian

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik
Section 139Section 143(3)

…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…

Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS vs. The Indian News Paper Society

ITA/918/2015HC Delhi10 Dec 2015
Section 194ISection 260A

…e placed reliance on a large number of decisions including Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gemini Arts P. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201. He also referred to the recent decision of this Court in Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 350 ITR 24 (Del). 5. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee referred to the specific factual findings of the CIT (A) at its discussion of the clauses of the lease agreement which ha…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 957 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6713-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost ident…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 956 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6715-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost ident…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/957/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6713-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost ident…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/956/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6715-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost ident…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Deputy CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

ITA - 205 / 2010HC Delhi12 Jul 2012
Section 143Section 269U

…dered to be capital in nature, particularly in the light of the definition of the expression "immovable property" furnished in section 269UA(d)(i). The assessee relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201, and contended that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions and found that the facts of the said case were distinguishable. It was held that lease of land for 90 years conferred a benefit of enduring nature to the assesse and, consequently, it was in the nature of capital expenditure. This…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Deputy CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

ITA/205/2010HC Delhi12 Jul 2012
Section 143Section 269U

…dered to be capital in nature, particularly in the light of the definition of the expression "immovable property" furnished in section 269UA(d)(i). The assessee relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 201, and contended that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions and found that the facts of the said case were distinguishable. It was held that lease of land for 90 years conferred a benefit of enduring nature to the assesse and, consequently, it was in the nature of capital expenditure. This…