CIT v. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) Pvt. Ltd.

130 ITR 385High Court1981#14884 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 244A Section 35D Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

revenue expenditure capital expenditure section 37(1)section 37 company india business interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) Pvt. Ltd.

AGS TRANSACT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

ITA 4653/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ags Transact Technologies Dcit Circle 6(1)(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 601-602, Trade World, B Wing Mumbai-400020. S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaeca 0901 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: 04/12/2024

…view taken by , 60 ITR 52, and it did not agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court h Court Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-I v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. I v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd., 130 ITR 385. , 130 ITR 385. Dr. Debi Pal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Dr. Debi Pal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Dr. Debi Pal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee, has submitted that the assessee, has submitted that the High Court was in High Court was in error in holding that the expenses incurred…

UMANO HEALTHCARE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3256/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…horised share capital. The Ld. AO required the assessee to show cause why the same be not disallowed. The assessee submitted that it is revenue expenditure and should not be disallowed relying on the decision in CIT vs. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 385 and Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CIT 171 ITR 224 (AP). The Ld. AO did not consider the explanation satisfactory. Treating the expenditure as capital in nature, the Ld. AO 2 disallowed the same under section 37(1) of the Act and added it to the income of the assessee. 5. Similarly, software expenses of Rs. 3,00,000/- were treated as capital expendi…

SACMI ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 247/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.247/Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhirubhai Shah, AR

Section 143(2)Section 35D

…there was no fresh in flow of funds, and the ROC fees and other related expenditure was admissible expenditure being revenue expenditure in nature. Before the ld.AO the assessee relied upon decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P.Ltd., 130 ITR 385 (Mad); and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Brooke bond India Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 798 and others. The assessee, alternatively pleaded that 1/5th of the said expenses should be allowed under section 35D of the Act. However, the ld.AO did not accept explanation of the assessee. He held that by converting the debentures into equity sh…

PROSALES FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prosales Financial Services बिधम/ Ito 10(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 158, Dani Corporate Park, 1St Road, Mumbai-400020. Floor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruze (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2576K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…has carried out some improvements for better enjoyment of the lease hold property. In this context, reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Andavar Calendering Mills - 210 ITR 815 (Mad.), Haridas Bhagat & Co. - 240 ITR 169 (Mad.), Kisenchand Chellaram India Pvt. Ltd. - 130 ITR 385 (Mad.). The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hede Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. - (2002) 258 ITR 380 has held that expenditure incurred on converting godown premises taken by assessee on hire into office premises was revenue expenditure, since the assets created by spending the amount did not belong to the assessee but the assessee got business a…

AAKASH STONE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing

ITA 7001/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…issioner of Income Tax, 225 ITR 798 (SC). The assessee has relied on the following judgments to support his case that treatment of the impugned expenditure as a revenue expenditure is a possible view :- i) CIT vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd., (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Madras High Court); ii) Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CIT, (1988) 171 ITR 224 (AP High Court); iii) Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) vs. CIT, (1989) 175 ITR 220 (Karnataka High Court) No doubt, the reliance placed by the assessee on the aforesaid decisions support the plea that the expenditure is revenue in nature, so however, the judgment of t…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. TELECOM FINANCE (INDIA) LTD.

ITA - 551 / 2010HC Delhi12 Sept 2012

…e ears. The expenditure incurred at the Rs. 14,88,536/- (Rs. 13,46,150/- - Rs. 3,45,835/- – Rs. 2,03,449/-) is in the nature of current repairs. 2012:DHC:5669-DB ITA-551 & 738/2010 Page 10 .... In case of CIT Vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. LTd. 130 ITR 385 (Mad) Hon’ble Court held that improvement carried out in leasehold premises by constructing partition walls. Wall panelling, show windows etc. was revenue expenditure. The expenditure incurred has resulted into receipt of higher amount of lease rentals. Following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Kishanchand Chellaram (I…