CIT v. General Insurance Corporation

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 26 of 32 vs. General Insurance Corporation (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 280 : (2006) 286 ITR 232 (SC). In that case, the issue involved was regarding expenses by way of stamp duty and registration for issue of bonus shares. These expenses were also in connection with the capital base of the assessee company therein. Under these facts, the apex Court held that since there is no flow of funds or increase in the capital employed, it cannot be s…

DCIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 26 of 32 vs. General Insurance Corporation (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 280 : (2006) 286 ITR 232 (SC). In that case, the issue involved was regarding expenses by way of stamp duty and registration for issue of bonus shares. These expenses were also in connection with the capital base of the assessee company therein. Under these facts, the apex Court held that since there is no flow of funds or increase in the capital employed, it cannot be s…

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year

…the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT I.T.A. No. 1946/Mum/2014 I.T.A. Nos. 1172 and 1222/Mum/2015 Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 Page 26 of 32 vs. General Insurance Corporation (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 280 : (2006) 286 ITR 232 (SC). In that case, the issue involved was regarding expenses by way of stamp duty and registration for issue of bonus shares. These expenses were also in connection with the capital base of the assessee company therein. Under these facts, the apex Court held that since there is no flow of funds or increase in the capital employed, it cannot be s…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं /ITA No.3703/M/2011, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08) वष" Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Formerly known DCIT-LTU, as Indian Rayon and Industries Limited) World Trade Centre, 28th A4, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Vs. Floor, Marg, Worli, M…

Addl CIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd ( Formerly Known As Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd), Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं /ITA No.3703/M/2011, िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08) वष" Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Formerly known DCIT-LTU, as Indian Rayon and Industries Limited) World Trade Centre, 28th A4, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Vs. Floor, Marg, Worli, M…

Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

…owards stamp fee for executing the agreement for subsidy for co- generation project and the same should be 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…