CIT v. Hindustan Inceticides Limited

250 ITR 338High Court#13898 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Inceticides Limited

MALCO ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIRCLE-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115J

…ein assessee classified it as the capital expenditure, ii. Relying on decisions of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Brooke Bond India Ltd 225 ITR 798, Punjab State industrial development Corporation Ltd 225 ITR 792, CIT versus Hindustan insecticide Ltd 250 ITR 338, disallowed the same, learned CIT – A also confirmed the same. The assessee is in appeal in above grounds. 62. The learned authorized representative submitted that the AO has grossly erred in treating the expenditure incurred on capital reduction, share issue and redemption of preference shares expenditure resulting into an enduring benefit so a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

…was found eligible for amortization u/s.35DD of the Act while fees for increase in authorized share capital was not eligible for amortization specially In view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 250 ITR 338. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the stamp duty expenses as eligible for amortization u/s.35DD of the Act but fees for increase in authorized share capital was found as not eligible in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (Supra.). 5. On this issue, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune has held as follows: “22.We have perused…

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…not be amortized under section 35D of the Act. Accordingly addition of Rs. 14,15,495/- was made to the income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Inceticides Limited reported at 250 ITR 338. 23. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and furnished the details of expenses incurred which has been incorporated at page no. 12 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition, the same is not reproduced herein. It was further submitted that a total amount of Rs. 9,67,500/- (Rs. 8,92,500/- plus 75,000/-) was…

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

ADANI LOGISTICS LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS INLAND CONWARE PVT. LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 35D(2)

…f the Act. The ld.AO while making disallowance observed that expenditure was incurred for increase in authorized share capital. The ld.AO further put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., 250 ITR 338 where is held that expenses incurred for increasing the authorized share capital are not covered by the provisions of section 35D(2) of the Act and thus, the same are not allowable under section 35D of the Act. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. 9. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended this is the fifth year of clai…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MODINE THERNAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 3310/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 35DSection 37

…ees paid for increase in Authorized Share Capital is eligible for deduction u/s.35D whereas section 35D has no application to the facts of the case. 2.3 Having regard to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd, 2001 250 ITR 338 (Del) has held that fees paid for increase of share capital is not deductible, that fees paid for increase in authorized share capital is not fees for registration of the company and is not amortizable u/s.35D, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the AO. 3. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.4,96,364/- on E…

JT CIT OSD CIR 6(2) vs. M/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,

In the result, appeal is dismissed on this point

ITA 4394/MUM/2003[99-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016

Bench: Us For Fresh Adjudication On The Following Issue :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Of Rs.53,74,474/- & Directing The Assessing Officer To Rework Out The Deduction U/S. 35D Relating To The Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Page 2 Of 4 Expenditure Incurred On Global Depository Receipts, Relying On His Order For The A.Y. 1998-99 In The Assessee’S Own Case, Which Has Not Been Accepted By The Department & Contested In Further Appeal To The Itat.”

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…ITA No.4394/Mum/2003 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ........………………….Appellant Circle – 6(2), Mumbai. Vs. Crompton Greaves Limited, ..........………….…Respondent 6th Floor, CG House, Dr. A.B. Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. [PAN: AAACC 3840 K] Appearances by: Alok Johri, for the appellant Hiro Rai, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 14th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : February 29th, 2016 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar…