CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.

221 ITR 420High Court1996#2223 most cited

What is CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the expansion of an existing business is revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction if it does not create a new asset. Accounting entries in books of accounts do not solely determine the allowability of an expenditure for income tax purposes.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. · 221 ITR 420 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · existing business expansion · Section 37 · new asset creation · accounting entries not conclusive · allowable business expenditure · unascertained liability

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194Section 194ASection 32AD

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 10(2)(xv)section 35ddasection 40a(9)section 32asection 170section 276section 145a(b)section 32(1)(iia)section 73section 36(1)(ii)resulting company

Judgments citing CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax(Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S. Texas Instruments(India) Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

For Appellant: Shri. Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT (DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru

…therefore of the view that the Revenue authorities were not justified in not accepting the claim of the assessee for deduction. In this regard, we are of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd., 221 ITR 420 (Kolkata) was squarely applicable. The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was jussified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petrochemical project was revenge expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? Th…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Chaithanya Projects Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1350/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Chaithanya Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 104, 3Rd Floor, Commissioner Of Prestige Omega, Income Tax, Epip Zone, Circle- 2(1) (1), Whitefield, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aabcc4930H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitish Ranjan, Ca : Smt. H. Kabila, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 25/03/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore, For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(I)Cit(A) Erred In Fact & Law In Holding That The Expenditure Incurred Towards A New Project Of "Health Park", Which Was Capitalized In The Books Of The Assessee, Was Incurred Towards The Existing Business Of 'Development & Construction Of Real Estate Property'.

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CA
Section 143(2)

…e property. Since the new asset did not come into existence, these expenditures are allowable in computation of income. This view has been upheld in various cases, such as the decision of High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 880/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 879/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 803/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 802/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Khammam vs. M/S Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Khammam Dist

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 801/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Kothjagudem, Hyderabad vs. Addl.Citt, Khammam Range, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 561/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

DCIT, Circle-1, Khammam vs. The Singareni Colleries Company Lt.D, Kothagudem

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…ilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta wherein it has held as under: “3. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the question is partly covered by the decision in CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). The relevant question referred by the Tribunal to this Court in that case was whether in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred for the assessee's proposed petro-chemical project was revenue expenditure and to be allowed as a deduction? This Court in answering the ques…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Landis+Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2298/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akash Patel, CA
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05) DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s Landis+ Gyr Ltd. P.O-Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, 24 Parganas (South), Pin-700104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACV 9922 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Akash Patel, CA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 28/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28 /07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the R…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3925/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Cit(Ltu) 29Th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37(1)

…9] 175 ITD 164 (Mumbai-Trib.) • Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. (185 Taxman 277) (Del HC) • Idea Cellular Ltd vs ACIT ( 47 taxmann.com 341) (2014) (Mum ITAT) • CIT vs Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. ( 185 Taxman 44) ( 2009) (Delhi HC) • CiT vs Graphite India Ltd. (221 ITR 420) (1996) (kolkatta HC) • Kesoram Industries & Coton Mills Ltd. (196 ITR 845) (Kol HC) • CIT vs Tata Robins Fraser ( 2012) ( 26 taxmann.com 15) (Jha HC) 6. The Ld. DR present for the revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(LTU) submitted that the arguments of the Ld. AR lack substance in the sense that an erroneous order…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ater abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to acquisition of a capital asset could not have been t…

Mercedes - Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/PUN/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 35A

…ting operations:  Bralco Metal Industries vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 206 ITR 477 (Bom) (refer page 300 of the Paper Book)  DCIT v Assam Asbestos Ltd (2003) 263 ITR 357 (Gau) (refer page 306 of the Paper Book)  CIT v Graphite India Limited (1996) 221 ITR 420 (Cal) (refer page 311 of the Paper Book) .............................. …………………….. … 3.18 Prayer Based on the above, the Appellant prays that the said expenditure / loss be treated as business loss / expenditure and allowed as a deduction in computing taxable profits for the AY 1999-00. 4. Ground No.4 : Without prejudice to the above, the learne…