How many judgments cite CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. (221 ITR 420), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 32(1)(iia), Section 32AC, Section 37, Section 40A(9), Section 10B(8), Section 194.

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.

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 32AC Section 37 Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194 Section 194A Section 32AD

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Graphite India Ltd.

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hazira Port Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1196/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A). It Was

Section 143(3)

…assessee would be allowable as a revenue expenditure, since the expenses could be treated as facilitating trading operation for carrying on the business more efficiently giving advantage in revenue field. It was so held in CIT v. Coromandal Fertilizers [2001] 247 ITR 417 (AP) following the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC). "Once for all" payment test is inconclusive as was pointed out in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 377 (SC). Extension of assessee's business could not be treated as an activity, which will disentitle the expenditure for the…

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1478/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)Section 92C

…s. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd., 332 ITR 594 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Euro India Ltd., [2014] 223 Taxman 97 (Del.). (vi) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 159 ITR 673 (Cal.). (vii) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.). (viii) CIT vs. Graphite India Ltd., 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). (ix) Binani Cement Ltd. vs. CIT, 227 CTR 49 (Cal.). (x) DCIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., 57 taxmann.com (Guj.). 30. He submitted that identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 and the Tribunal vide ITA No.1170/Del/2015 decided the issue in favour of the as…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…venue expenditure, the Revenue insists it to be only in the nature of a capital loss. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessee’s claim, following the decision in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Chemical Products Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 582 (Mad); CIT v. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal) and CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 114 (Raj). Before we proceed further in the matter, it would be relevant to ascertain the facts and determine the nature of the expenditure and, thus, the issues arising in respect of the said claim. The visbreaker unit was originally commissioned in 1979. In February, 1995, it was decided to…

M/S Tcg Lifesciences Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 966/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1053/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2) -Vs.- M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 966/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- C.I.T.(A)-22, (Formerly “Tcg Lifesciences Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcc 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Assessee : Shri S.P.Singh, Irs (Rtd.) & Shri Manoneet Dalal & Ms.Gunjan Khanna, Cas Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh, IRS (Rtd.) & Shri ManoneetFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] I.T.A No. 1053/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 A.C.I.T., Circle-11(2) -vs.- M/s. TCG Lifesciences Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCC 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 966/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. TCG Lifesciences Pvt.Ltd. -vs- C.I.T.(A)-22, (Formerly “TCG Lifesciences Ltd.) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCC 0401 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) For the Assessee : Shri S.P.Singh, IRS (Rtd.) & Shri Manoneet Dalal & Ms.Gunj…

ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Limited., Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1053/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Singh, IRS (Rtd.) & Shri ManoneetFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

Empire Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4065/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4065/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Empire Industries Limited Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax Empire House बनाम/ 414, Senapati Bapat Marg Range 6(2) Lower Parel Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 013 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-2757-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: K.K.Ved & N.A.Patade, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Naveen Gupta, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…lity study was to explore opportunities to deploy the excess reserves held by the assessee and therefore, the same were allowable to the assessee. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pardesh High Court in CIT Vs. Coromandal Fertilizers [247 ITR 417]. Per contra, Ld. DR placed reliance on the stand of lower authorities and contended that the same being incurred to set up new business and therefore, not allowable. 7. After hearing rival contentions and perusing relevant material on record, we find that the said expenditure were in the nature of upfront consultancy fees to identify the project…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…) iii) CIT v. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd.: 332 ITR 594 (Del.) iv) CIT v. Euro India Ltd.: [2014] 223 Taxman 97 (Del.) v) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) vi) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.) vii) CIT vs. Graphite India Ltd.: 221 ITR 420 (Cal.) viii) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT: 277 CTR 49 (Cal.) ix) DCIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd.: 57 taxmann.com (Guj.) 20. Without prejudice, the appellant respectfully submits that the AO should have stated that the expenditure of Rs. 50,30,71,917 should be allowed as a deduction in the financial year 2011-12 viz. being the yea…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2625/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…any in order to expand its business overseas. But since the prices quoted in the final bid was not commensurate to the product, therefore, the assessee exited from the final biding. The AR. has also brought on record the case law of CIT vs Graphite India Ltd. 221 ITR 420 (Kol). In this judgment the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has held that any expenditure incurred with the motive of expanding the possibility of the business of the assessee, such expenditure incurred did not bring into existence any capital asset of enduring nature and, therefore, it is to be considered as business expenditure. I have considered th…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2126/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 4442/MUM/2010[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4442/Mum/2010 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Dcit - Range 2(2) Room No. 577, 5Th Floor L&T House, N.M. Marg Vs. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan: Aaacl0140P Mumbai-400020 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita No./4599/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 1998-99 वष" Dcit - Range 2(2) M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Mukund Chate Assessee By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.26.03.20130Of The Cit(A)-5,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Manufacturing Of Heavy Machinery & Cement, Etc., Filed It Return Of Income On,27.11.1998,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.20 Crores.The Ao Complet -Ed The Assessment,On 28.02.2001, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,09,15,37,490/-.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Chate

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(9)

…support of the contention, the learned Counsel has relied on various decisions including the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Coromandal Fertilizers [247 ITR 417] , Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT VS. Graphite India Ltd [221 ITR 420] and that of Gauhati High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Assam Asbestos Limited [185 CTR 223]. This issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1989-90 (mentioned supra). The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has confirmed the 50% disallowance made by the Assessing Authority.…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Gupta Synthetics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1009/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S Gupta Synthetics Ltd., Income Tax, 4(2), 326, Sardar Gruh Building, Vs. Room No.642, 6Th Floor,, 198, L T Road, Ayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aaacg8559P

For Appellant: Ms.Anu Krishna AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satish R Mody

…sed to establish a Nylon Tyre manufacturing facility and hence obtained feasibility report by incurring a sum of Rs.13,04,410/-. The assessee claimed the same as revenue expenditure by placing reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s Graphite India Ltd-221 ITR 420; ii) Hindustan Alluminim Corporation Ltd V/s CIT -55 CTR 237; and iii) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd V/s CIT -190 ITR 328 iv) CIT V/s Coromandel Fertilizer (105 Taxman 409) (AP) 7. The AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee and held that the expenditure incurred for obtaining feasibility report for new project is a capital expenditure. Accordingl…

CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent it covers the first two questions;

ITA - 95 / 2011HC Delhi14 Sept 2012

…ly even though later on project was 2012:DHC:5739-DB ITA-95 & 100/2011 Page 5 abandoned were allowable expenditure. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Coromandal Fertilizers 247 ITR 417. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions :- i) Enpro India Ltd. Vs. DCIT Taxman 132 (Delhi) ii) DCIT Vs. Assam Asbetos Ltd. 263 ITR 357 (Guhati) iii) Sayaji Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 100 Taxman 110 (MAG) 5.4 It was also stated that the decisions relied upon by the A.O. are not applicable to the appellant‟s case. It was…