CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.

311 ITR 253High Court2009#4036 most cited

What is CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. authority for?

Expenses incurred prior to business commencement but after business setup are deductible as revenue expenses, as the setting up and commencement dates of a business are not necessarily the same.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. · 311 ITR 253 · setting up of business · commencement of business · revenue expenses · section 37 · previous year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24(b)Section 10(2)Section 143(1)Section 2(11)Section 2(34)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)revenue expendituresection 37(1)section 37section 14aincome from other sourcessection 10scrutiny assessmentprevious yearcompanytransferindia

Judgments citing CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDING) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs. Aricent Technologies (Holding) Cricle-3(1), R. No. Pvt. Ltd. 380B, 5, Jain Mandir Marg (Annexe) C. R. Building, I. P. Connaught Place Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nction between the commencement of the business and setting-up of the same.” 12 DCIT Vs. Aricent Technologies (Holding) Pvt. ltd. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in following cases • CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. 311 ITR 253 (Del HC) • CIT vs. LG Electronics (India) Limited: 282 ITR 545 (Del Hon'ble High Court • CIT v. ESPN Software India (P) Ltd. 218 CTR 427 (Del HC) 17. In view of the above settled position of law having been laid down by the Courts, we are of the opinion that the Assessee which is an investment company would be regarded to have set up its busine…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2019/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi a/w Priyank GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

…nses are not allowable u/s 37 and hence not allowable is also not tenable. In the case of DCIT V. HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd (ITA no.3289/DELI2018) (Delhi Trib.), a part of the order is reproduced, "6.10 In the case of CIT Vs Hughes Escorts Communication [2009] 311 ITR 253, it has been held that the expenses incurred in the previous year, prior to the commencement of the business but after the setting up of its business, which two dates need not be the same, would be deductible as revenue expenses. In this case, while making distinction between the setting up and commencement of a business the Hon'ble Court has rel…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 2018/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

…nses are not allowable u/s 37 and hence not allowable is also not tenable. In the case of DCIT V. HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd (ITA no.3289/DELI2018) (Delhi Trib.), a part of the order is reproduced, "6.10 In the case of CIT Vs Hughes Escorts Communication [2009] 311 ITR 253, it has been held that the expenses incurred in the previous year, prior to the commencement of the business but after the setting up of its business, which two dates need not be the same, would be deductible as revenue expenses. In this case, while making distinction between the setting up and соттепсетent of a business the Hon'ble Court has rel…

M/S MONK AKARSHALA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4151/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Monk Akarshala Private Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 2(2)(1) 4116 Oberoi Garden Estate Room No. 545 Chandivli Vlg Farm Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Near Chandivli Studio, Saki Naka Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai City - 400072 Pan: Aagcm4703K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa & Ms. Manasi Vyas Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 234B

…d by the first appellate authority. The said Page No. 9 Monk Akarshala Private Limited findings of fact have been affirmed by the tribunal. A pragmatic and a practical view has to be taken.” 17. And “13. In CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., (2009) 311 ITR 253 (Delhi), the assessee was in the business of setting up of satellite communication systems. It was held that the first step required was the purchase of VSAT equipment. The said purchase order was placed on 28th July, 1994, and thereafter the assessee had obtained license from the Department of Telecommunications, and, started receiving satellite…

VIATON ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1280/Hyd/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Viaton Energy Pvt. Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-17(4), [PAN No. AACCV9264G] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Ch. Prasanna, ARs राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronounce…

S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 430/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.430/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) S J P Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E-3300, Radhakrishna Textile Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, 395002 Income Tax Colony, Pan No. Aajcs 4313 C Athwa, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 254(1)

…use and was ready for passive use of it during relevant assessment year. To support such view, Ld.AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hughes Escorts Communications [207] 165 Taxman 318 (Delhi)/[2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi)/[2007] 213 CTR 45 (Delhi)[17-09- 2007]. The Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [2011] 9 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi)/[2011] 197 Taxman 25 (Delhi)/[2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi)/[2011] 238 CTR 113 (Delhi)[24-12-2010]. 8. Against ground No.4, which relates to d…

GLEN PROPBUILD PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…ACIT & Anr., Writ Petition No. 17 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020. 16. S.S. Landmarks Vs. ITO [2020] 117 taxmann.com 825 (Bom) 17. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 18. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications, [2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) 19. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) 20. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., I.T.A. No.2752/Del/2018 5 (2009] 318 ITR 347 (Delhi). 7. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the CIT(A)’s order. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions. We note tha…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HMS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4190/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT Vs. HMS Real Estate Pvt. Circle -11 (1) Ltd. 1, AD, Vandhana New Delhi Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi PAN No.AACCH0745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Respondent by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Date of hearing 16.03.2023 Date of 16.03.2023 pronouncement ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the revenue is directed against order dated 28/03/2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appea…

VATIKA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3987/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 147Section 32

…s Ltd. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) 3. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 102 ITR 25 (Guj.) 4. Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (SC) 5. CIT Vs. L.G. Electronics (I) Ltd. 282 ITR 545 (Del.) 6. CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253 (Del.) 7. Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Delhi); 8. Omniglobe Information Tech India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 1 (Delhi); 9. Indian Railway Stations Development Corporations Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 107 taxmann.com 79 (Delhi) 10. Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT, 98 ITR 167 11. Chhabirani Agro Industrial Enterp…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…the assessee had already set up df a business of manufacturing cement" 1.13. In a recent decision the Delhi High Court also held once the business is set up all the revenue expense are to be allowed as deduction. In CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253. 1.14. The Court held that once the assessee placed the order for purchase of VSAT equipments the business should held to have been set up. The held as follows: ITA No.1341/Bang/2017 & ITA Nos.121&122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 18 "12. Turning the facts of the present case, it is clear that the business…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…the assessee had already set up df a business of manufacturing cement" 1.13. In a recent decision the Delhi High Court also held once the business is set up all the revenue expense are to be allowed as deduction. In CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253. 1.14. The Court held that once the assessee placed the order for purchase of VSAT equipments the business should held to have been set up. The held as follows: ITA No.1341/Bang/2017 & ITA Nos.121&122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 18 "12. Turning the facts of the present case, it is clear that the business…

BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…the assessee had already set up df a business of manufacturing cement" 1.13. In a recent decision the Delhi High Court also held once the business is set up all the revenue expense are to be allowed as deduction. In CIT Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd., 311 ITR 253. 1.14. The Court held that once the assessee placed the order for purchase of VSAT equipments the business should held to have been set up. The held as follows: ITA No.1341/Bang/2017 & ITA Nos.121&122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 18 "12. Turning the facts of the present case, it is clear that the business…

M/S MARUTI INSSURANCE BROKING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6442/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagcm8887L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Ms Tejasvi Jain, Ca, Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-6, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Soliciting Motor Insurance Business. It Was Incorporated On 24.11.2010 & Applied For Grant Of Direct Broker Licence To Irda, Vide Application Dated 01.12.2010 & Was Awarded Licence As A Direct Broker Of Irda In February, 2012. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.23,750/- & Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.2,78,22,376/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Fund, ESI, etc., indicates that business of the assessee was set up. Accordingly, the deduction claimed was held to be allowable. He also relied on the following decisions:- 1. CIT v. ESPN Software: 301 ITR 368 (Del.) 2. CIT vs. Hughes Escort Communications: 311 ITR 253 (Del.) 3. Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT: 26 ITR 151 (Bom.) 4. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT: 416 ITR 343 (Mad) 5. CIT vs. Franco Tosi Ingegneria: 241 ITR 268 (Mad.) 6. Religare Macquarie Wealth Management Ltd v. ACIT: 2396/Del/2013 (Del. Trib.) 7. DCIT v. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited: 115 TTJ 822 (Kol Trib.) 8. DC…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HMS REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3289/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hms Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Circle- 11(1) 1 Ad, Vandhana Building , New Delhi 11, Tolstoy Marg, (Appellant) New Delhi Aacch0745G (Respondent)

Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Circle- 11(1) 1 AD, Vandhana Building , New Delhi 11, Tolstoy Marg, (APPELLANT) New Delhi AACCH0745G (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Amit Kutoch, SR. DR Respondent by Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv, Sh. R. P. Mall, Adv Date of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 27.12.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 19/2/2018 passed by CIT(A)-4, New Delhi for Assessment Year 201…

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. L & T MHI BOILERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 712/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.712/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax L & T Mhi Boilers Private Limited 3Rd Floor, L & T House, N.M.Marg, Circle-2(2)(1) बनाम/ Room No.545, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Ballard Estate, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcl-2635-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : R.P.Meena, Ld.Cit Dr Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena, Ld.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ductions under section 10(2)" The ratio of the above decision has been followed by various courts of the country from time to time. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India) Ltd. [282 ITR 545] & CIT Vs Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. [311 ITR 253] & also in CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P. Ltd. [368 ITR 680] derived ratio from the above decision. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Axis Private Equity Limited [IT Appeal No. 1204 of 2014 30/01/2017] expressed similar view. The Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in Video Pla…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASF INSIGNIA SEZ PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6732/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita Nos. 6732 & 6733/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Circle-3(2), Vs. Asf Insignia Sez Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Known As Canton Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.), 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaccc7148L) Co. No. 194/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asf Insignia Sez Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-3(2), (Earlier Known As Canton New Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.), 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaccc7148L) Revenue By: Shri R.C. Dande, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Ms. Rano Jain, Adovcate Shri Ashish Goel, Ca

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdovcateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dande, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…up and the date of commencement of the business. The contention of the assessee also finds support from the judgments of the High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. 102 ITR 25 (Guj) and CIT vs. Hughes Escorts Communication Ltd. 311 ITR 253 (Del). 6.3. The first appellate authority at para 5.5 held as follows: "In the present case before me, the appellant company, as stated herein above, has started systematic business activities. It has recruited the various staff and the staff(s) (sic) (are) engaged in carrying on the business activity. Further, it has entered into a commercial ag…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ATS ESTATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6753/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita Nos. 6732 & 6733/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Circle-3(2), Vs. Asf Insignia Sez Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (Earlier Known As Canton Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.), 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaccc7148L) Co. No. 194/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asf Insignia Sez Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-3(2), (Earlier Known As Canton New Delhi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.), 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaccc7148L) Revenue By: Shri R.C. Dande, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Ms. Rano Jain, Adovcate Shri Ashish Goel, Ca

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdovcateFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dande, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…up and the date of commencement of the business. The contention of the assessee also finds support from the judgments of the High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. 102 ITR 25 (Guj) and CIT vs. Hughes Escorts Communication Ltd. 311 ITR 253 (Del). 6.3. The first appellate authority at para 5.5 held as follows: "In the present case before me, the appellant company, as stated herein above, has started systematic business activities. It has recruited the various staff and the staff(s) (sic) (are) engaged in carrying on the business activity. Further, it has entered into a commercial ag…

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INX MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT-DR
Section 32Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/s. INX Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 th Floor, 3rd Floor, INX House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AABC15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/s. INX Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ ACIT, Circle 6(1), 3rd Floor, INX House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Mar…

SHRI ARIHANT TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed with our directions as given above

ITA 2255/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Arihant Traders, Pr. Cit-20 211- B Prabhat Bldg, Pirmal Chambers बनाम/ Deodhar Rd Matunga (Cr) Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai -400019 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ablfs6608N Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in proper working mode. Under these circumstances, it could be clearly said that business of the assessee was duly set up. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) for the proposition 5 Arihant Traders that expenses are allowable immediately after setting up of the business, even if business is not yet actually commenced. With regard to use of the computers, it was submitted that from evidences available on the record, it is evident that all the computers were duly installed at the premises of the…

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. GATTEFOSSE INDIA P. LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 333/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Sonalee GodboleFor Respondent: Smt. Anu K. Aggarwal
Section 3

…t of Delhi after noticing that the assessee had certain infrastructure facilities at the relevant time. 10.6. Once again the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of CIT Vs Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd (2009) 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the moment the assessee purchased VSAT equipment, it should be said that the business has been setup. 10.7. A similar view was taken in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd 318 ITR 347 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed that : “The business was set up when directors were appointed, staff…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. (311 ITR 253) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax