CIT v. Ishar Dass Tilak Chand

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. We refer here to the case laws cited by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of CIT v. IsharDass Tilak Chand (1979) 120 ITR 440 (P&H), the assessee-firm derived income from selling country liquor as licensed contractor. Annual license fee was payable in specified equal instalments. Prescribed percentage was payable in lump sum as security deposit adjustable against license fee arrear or penalty levied for breach of conditions for license. The Government forfeited security…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. We refer here to the case laws cited by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of CIT v. Ishar Dass Tilak Chand (1979) 120 ITR 440 (P&H), the assessee-firm derived income from selling country liquor as licensed contractor. Annual license fee was payable in specified equal installments. Prescribed percentage was payable in lump sum as security deposit adjustable against license fee arrear or penalty levied for breach of Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 conditions f…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. We refer here to the case laws cited by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of CIT v. Ishar Dass Tilak Chand (1979) 120 ITR 440 (P&H), the assessee-firm derived income from selling country liquor as licensed contractor. Annual license fee was payable in specified equal installments. Prescribed percentage was payable in lump sum as security deposit adjustable against license fee arrear or penalty levied for breach of Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 conditions f…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. We refer here to the case laws cited by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of CIT v. Ishar Dass Tilak Chand (1979) 120 ITR 440 (P&H), the assessee-firm derived income from selling country liquor as licensed contractor. Annual license fee was payable in specified equal installments. Prescribed percentage was payable in lump sum as security deposit adjustable against license fee arrear or penalty levied for breach of Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 conditions f…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. We refer here to the case laws cited by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In the case of CIT v. Ishar Dass Tilak Chand (1979) 120 ITR 440 (P&H), the assessee-firm derived income from selling country liquor as licensed contractor. Annual license fee was payable in specified equal installments. Prescribed percentage was payable in lump sum as security deposit adjustable against license fee arrear or penalty levied for breach of Tata Chemicals Ltd. A.Y. 2004–05 & 2005–06 conditions f…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5Th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

…ent was debited to the profit and loss account and amortized towards deposit lying with the lessor on principle of matching concept and hence allowable as business expenditure. It is found that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had relied on the decision in 120 ITR 440, 134 ITR 21 and 135 ITR 200. 8.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the above claim of write off of provision for lease deposit is not allowable as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act as the lease deposit is capital in nature. Thus the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the CIT(A). 8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and p…