CIT v. J.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd.

GUMPRO DRILLING FLUIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

…he Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the expenditure only to the extent of Rs. 24,000 being the part of the gratuity amount paid by the assessee to the heirs of deceased.” 2.13. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs J.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 218 (Cal.), held as under: “It had been found by the Tribunal that with the capital borrowed the assessee had acquired a business asset for the purposes of its own business. Further finding was that it was the object of the assessee to house its own office as also the offices of the companies managed by it. The findings of the Tribunal had not been…

MANOIR PETRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

…he Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the expenditure only to the extent of Rs. 24,000 being the part of the gratuity amount paid by the assessee to the heirs of deceased.” 2.14. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs J.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 218 (Cal.), relied upon by the assessee, held as under: “It had been found by the Tribunal that with the capital borrowed the assessee had acquired a business asset for the purposes of its own business. Further finding was that it was the object of the assessee to house its own office as also the offices of the companies managed by it. The findings…

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

…re of the nature of Revenue or capital, the Ld. counsel relied upon the decisions in i. R. B. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS vs.CIT 31 ITR 427 (Nagpur.) ii. CIT v. Oxford University Press 108 ITR 166 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs J.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 218 (Cal.) and iv. CIT vs I.C.I. India Pvt. Ltd. 139 ITR 105 (Cal.) 2.2. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR, Shri Manjunatha Swamy, defended the revisional order by contending that the assessment order is not speaking one and the details filed by the assessee are general, the ld. 4 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. Assessing Officer has not applied his…