CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

113 ITR 877High Court1978#9261 most cited

What is CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for acquiring premises on lease is allowable as a business deduction. The period of the lease is not decisive of whether the asset is of an enduring nature.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. · 113 ITR 877 · revenue expenditure · lease expenditure · business deduction · Section 37(1) · enduring nature · legal expenses · stamp duty expenses

Judgments citing CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…ase itself could not be decisive of the question whether the asset was of enduing nature. On these facts, the impugned expenditure was revenue in nature. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 113 ITR 877 and in the case of Octavious Steel and Co. Ltd. 221 ITR 810. Considering the nature of expenditure in the light of the judicial decisions, legal expenses have to be allowed u/s 37(1) of the Act. We order accordingly. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that there is as such no irregularity in so far as the claim of the assessee made u/s 37…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT Vs. Cinecita (P) Ltd, (1982) 137 ITR 652 (Bom); (ii). Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 29 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Richardson Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 516 (Bom); (iii). CIT Vs. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 877 (Bom), as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R before us, in itself negates the claim of the assessee that the expenditure incurred towards stamp duty expenses in respect of a lease deed was to be construed as an ―intangible asset‖ falling within the meaning of Sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act, and would thus be eligible for depreciation. In the case of…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

…her reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate…

M/S. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2687/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lause for renewal at the option of the assessee for a further period of five years. In view of this court's decision in Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 516, in which, following the earlier decisions in CIT v. Hanftst Pharmaceutical Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 877, CIT v. Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42 and CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652, this court held that the period of lease was not of much relevance and that the expenditure incurred for acquiring premises on lease was allowable as a business deduction, we hold that the amounts advanced by the assessee for the purp…

M/S R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Chaddha, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(4)

…tself could not be decisive of the question whether the asset was of enduring nature. On these facts, the impugned expenditure was revenue in nature. 21. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd 113 ITR 877 and in the case of Octavious Steel and Co. Ltd 221 ITR 810. Considering the nature of expenditure in the light of the judicial decisions, legal expenses have to be allowed u/s 37(1) of the Act. We order accordingly. 22. In so far as the claim of expenditure of Rs. 51,384/- is concerned, the facts on record show that this amount was deducted by o…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…her reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…her reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…her reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Intuit Technology Services Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1892/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 246ASection 92BSection 92C

…od of the lease could not be regarded as decisive of the circumstances as to whether the asset or advantage secured was an enduring nature.” 7.6 While holding so Hon’ble Bombay High Court placed its reliance on CIT vs. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd reported in 113 ITR 877 and CIT vs. Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Ltd., reported in 118 ITR 42. 7.7 Respectfully following the afore stated decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing the claim of the assessee to treat the stamp duty and registration expenses as revenue expenditure. 7.8 Accordingly the grou…

D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Kolkata vs. M/S Khadim India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2571/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s.Khadim India Ltd. -versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCK3341A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Circle-3, -versus- M/s. Khadim India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCK3341A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Department : Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA No.2368/Kol/…

M/S Khadim India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT-Circle-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 2368/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s.Khadim India Ltd. -versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-3, Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCK3341A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 D.C.I.T., Circle-3, -versus- M/s. Khadim India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCK3341A) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Department : Shri Amitabha Chowdhury, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA No.2368/Kol/…

I.T.O WD - 4(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Abp Entertainment Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

Accordingly, this portion of ground no.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 966/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Chodhury, Advocate, ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…ar period was described in the said judgment as a relatively short period end, following the decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. 's case [1966] 60 ITR 52 and the ratio spelt out therein it was held in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 5 case [1978] 113 ITR 877 (Bom) that the Tribunal had taken the correct view and allowed the expenditure as being expenditure of a revenue nature. 2. In the case of DCIT vs. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd., 258 ITR 106 ITAT, Mumbai Bench it was held that it is well settled that when the transaction involved is a lease and not a purchase, the expenditure incurred thereon, including…

CIT v. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (113 ITR 877) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax