CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd.

306 ITR 182High Court2008#2971 most cited

What is CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred on improvements like flooring, partition, wiring, and false ceiling in existing premises is treated as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, even if it provides some lasting benefit. Such expenses are deductible if made for efficiently carrying on the business.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd · section 30 · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · business · company · india · enduring benefit · renovation expenses · leasehold premises

Sections most often in play

Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitsection 30capital expenditurerevenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37businesscompanyindiatotal income

Judgments citing CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…Even decision with regard to treating the expenditure incurred in a lease property to be treated as revenue expenditure is also supported by the following judicial pronouncements. HDFC Securities Ltd.,  Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. (306 ITR 182) (Delhi HC)  CIT v. Anush Shares and Securities (P) Ltd., 62 mxrnann.com 287) [Mad.)  Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Lazard India (P.) Ltd. (41 SOT 72) (Mum.)  Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ikea Trading (India) (P.) Ltd. (82 (Del Trib.) 17. In view of the above, we do not find any merit for the disallowance so made by the AO on…

M/S Corrnell Overseas Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5171/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5171/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-1, Panchsheel Enclave, Circle-3(1), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.07.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-35, New Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Levied By The Ao On The Additions Of Rs.1,95,320/- & Rs.8,28,304/- On Account Of Disallowances Of Legal & Professional Charges & Repair & Maintenance Expenses Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…ep of the building. These expenses cannot be regarded to be the capital expenditure and the expenditure in our opinion forms part of the current repair. Hon’ble Delhi High Court also in the following cases taken the same view: (i) CIT Vs Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 182 (Delhi High Court); (ii) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi HC); (iii) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (2012) 346 ITR 341 (Del.) 4. Ld. DR even though vehemently relied on the order of the authorities below but could not brought to our knowledge any contrary decision which has taken a different view. We, therefore, set aside…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…5% of Rs. 31.32 lacs i.e. Rs. 23.49 lakhs is on capital account, the submission to claim deduction on account of Section 30 of the Act made by the Appellant need not be examined. Nor the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182/175 Taxman 132 (Delhi) relied upon for interpretation of Section 30 of the Act need be examined. This for the reason that the Explanation to Section 30 of the Act itself provides that the amount paid on the cost of repairs would not include any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Although this Explanation to Section 30 of t…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…5% of Rs. 31.32 lacs i.e. Rs. 23.49 lakhs is on capital account, the submission to claim deduction on account of Section 30 of the Act made by the Appellant need not be examined. Nor the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182/175 Taxman 132 (Delhi) relied upon for interpretation of Section 30 of the Act need be examined. This for the reason that the Explanation to Section 30 of the Act itself provides that the amount paid on the cost of repairs would not include any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Although this Explanation to Section 30 of t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Vatika Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2331/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Vatika Hospitality Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-20, Vs. 621A, Devika Tower, Room No. 333, 6, Nehru Tower, New E-2, Ara Centre, Delhi Jhandewalan Pan:Aaacv0695D Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. CS Agarwal, Sr. Adv
Section 271

…nditure in nature. For this he referred to the celebrated decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Page 7 of 21 Court in case of 227 ITR 172. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Hi line pens private limited 306 ITR 182 wherein the Hon‟ble high court has held that the expenditure incurred on repairs and operation of leasehold premises is revenue expenditure. He further submitted that unless and until the expenditure is incurred on structural changes in the property the expenditure incurred is not capital in nature. He further stated that the mere fact that the e…

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘ई’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ीआर.सी.शमा",लेखासद", एवं"ीअमरजीतिसंह,"ाियकसद",केसम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly known as Commissioner of Income Vs. TCE Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCT0772E (…

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG OSD (7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 6786/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘ई’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI "ीआर.सी.शमा",लेखासद", एवं"ीअमरजीतिसंह,"ाियकसद",केसम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly known as Commissioner of Income Vs. TCE Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCT0772E (…

I.T.O WD - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2259/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…not an enduring asset. The Ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Hi ITA No.2259/Kol/2013 A.Y.2005-06 ITO Wd-8(2) Kol. vs. M/s Calcutta Medical Imaging Institute Ltd. Page 9 Line Pins (P) Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 182 wherein it has been held that expenditure on repairs and renovation of rented premises would fall within the expression “repairs to the premises” as appearing in Section 30(a0(i). Considering the facts of the case the A.O is directed to treat the amount of Rs.5,56,950/- as repairs u/s. 30(a)(ia) instead of treating it capital expenditure. This gr…

Aries Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5841/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5841/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Aries Exports Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Bhaktawar, 11 Th Floor, Income Tax – Circle 3(1), V. Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacca2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 30

…POP and other such identical expenses cannot be removed and needs to be charged to P&L account. In support, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. CIT 149 ITR 52 (Del) (ii) CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182 (Del) (iii) ACIT v. M.M. Publications Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 59 (Cochin) (Trib). ITA 5841/Mum/2012 5 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs. 37,56,259/- on items of floor marbles and its fixing, civil work, flooring, civil work and painting on the premises which was taken on leave and license basis by the assessee and…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4088/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…at, if repairs have been carried out in the premises occupies as a tenant then it has to be allowed as deduction under section 30 as ‘repairs’ that is, as cost of repairs to the premises. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of High Line Pins, reported in 306 ITR 182 has dealt this issue in detail wherein it was observed and held as under:- After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them, we are of the view that the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 30(a)(i) has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The decisions cited b…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3046/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…at, if repairs have been carried out in the premises occupies as a tenant then it has to be allowed as deduction under section 30 as ‘repairs’ that is, as cost of repairs to the premises. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of High Line Pins, reported in 306 ITR 182 has dealt this issue in detail wherein it was observed and held as under:- After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them, we are of the view that the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 30(a)(i) has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The decisions cited b…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3045/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…at, if repairs have been carried out in the premises occupies as a tenant then it has to be allowed as deduction under section 30 as ‘repairs’ that is, as cost of repairs to the premises. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of High Line Pins, reported in 306 ITR 182 has dealt this issue in detail wherein it was observed and held as under:- After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them, we are of the view that the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 30(a)(i) has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The decisions cited b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.709/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA No.775/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, Circle 3 (1), vs. M/s. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Ground Floor, PTI Bu;ilding, 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACC9308A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocates REVENUE BY : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These app…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.709/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA No.775/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, Circle 3 (1), vs. M/s. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Ground Floor, PTI Bu;ilding, 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACC9308A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocates REVENUE BY : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These app…

Commissioner of Income Tax - I vs. Cb Richard Ellis South Aisa P. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in

ITA - 320 / 2013HC Delhi17 Jul 2013

…n renovation in the rented premises was revenue in nature and towards current repairs. . 3. The said findings are as per and in consonance with two decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Hi Line Pens Private Limited (2008) 306 ITR 182 (Delhi) and unreported decision in CIT versus Amway India Enterprises Private Limited (ITA No. 346/2012 decided on 18th May, 2012). Keeping in view the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal and the nature and character of the expenditure incurred and the two judgments of the Delhi High Court quoted above, no substantial questio…

Shervani Hospitalities Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA 804/2011 Page 1 of 21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. 804 OF 2011 Reserved on: 22nd March, 2013 % Date of Decision: 28th May, 2013 SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. ....APPELLANT Through Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX …RESPONDENT Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRID…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eds Electronic Data Systems (India ) Pvt Ltd

ITA - 474 / 2009HC Delhi04 Oct 2012
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234DSection 30Section 31Section 37(1)Section 80H

…was granted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal on the other hand by remitting the matter, in fact acted contrary to the enacted provisions. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decisions reported as CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd, (2008) 306 ITR 182 and CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd., (2007) 292 ITR 266 and contended that the expenditure incurred for the improvement of lease hold premises as in the present case was deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act; it was also submitted that if the Revenue’s request for remitting the matter for examination of the entire expenditure, including…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. (India) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/474/2009HC Delhi04 Oct 2012
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234DSection 30Section 31Section 37(1)Section 80H

…was granted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal on the other hand by remitting the matter, in fact acted contrary to the enacted provisions. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decisions reported as CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd, (2008) 306 ITR 182 and CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd., (2007) 292 ITR 266 and contended that the expenditure incurred for the improvement of lease hold premises as in the present case was deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act; it was also submitted that if the Revenue’s request for remitting the matter for examination of the entire expenditure, including…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Telecom Finance (India) Ltd

ITA - 551 / 2010HC Delhi12 Sept 2012

…allowed as a deduction in terms of Section 30(a) (i). Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Escorts Finance Ltd [2006] 205 CTR (Del) 574, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 182 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Amway India Enterprises 4th November 2011 in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009. Alternatively, it was argued that the expenditure would fall under ambit of section 37(1) of the Act, and thus, would be deductible. 13. On the issue of whether this expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, counsel for…

CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions

ITA - 346 / 2012HC Delhi18 May 2012
Section 14A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 346/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. . . . versus . . . AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through : Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 18.05.2012 . . . 1. Two issues have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. . 2. The first issue relates to the ex…