CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

336 ITR 49High Court2011#11552 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115-OSection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 2(47)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 80hsection 35dsection 80hhcsection 80hhcolourable devicewritten down valuebusiness connectionput to usesection 40(a)(i)section 35section 32permanent establishment

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BIOSTACH INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…in the system of accounting. The cost of new dyes and moulds represents only replacement, and hence, should be allowed as a deduction. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in favour of the assessee: i. CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (2011) 336 ITR 49 (P&H) ii. CIT v/s TVS Motors Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 1 (Madras) iii. CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (ITA No. 351/2012) (Delhi HC) In the case of CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (supra), it has been held that the cost of moulds used in the manufacturing process should be treated as P a g e | 6 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt I…

BIOSTADT INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…in the system of accounting. The cost of new dyes and moulds represents only replacement, and hence, should be allowed as a deduction. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions in favour of the assessee: i. CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (2011) 336 ITR 49 (P&H) ii. CIT v/s TVS Motors Ltd. (2014) 364 ITR 1 (Madras) iii. CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (ITA No. 351/2012) (Delhi HC) In the case of CIT v/s Malerkotla Steels & Alloys (supra), it has been held that the cost of moulds used in the manufacturing process should be treated as P a g e | 6 ITA No. 349/Mum/2016 & 3559/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 Biostodt I…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…ITAT AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/2000) (g) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999) (h) ITAT AY 1994-95 (ITA No. 6964/Mum/2014) (i) ITAT AY 1993-94 (ITA No.6963/Mum/2014) (j) CIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd [2014] 364 ITR 1 (Mad) (k) Malerkotla Steels & Alloys P Ltd (336 ITR 49) (P&H) (I) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2012] ITA 351 of 2012 (Delhi) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236/Mum/2005.The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: “34. During the course of assessment, the AO has disallowed the deduction of expenditure incurred on dies and moulds as revenue expenditure to the amount of…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…) ITAT AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/2000) (g) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999) (h) ITAT AY 1994-95 (ITA No. 6964/Mum/2014) (i) ITATAY 1993-94 (ITA No.6963/Mum/2014) (j) CIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd [2014] 364 ITR 1 (Mad) (k) Malerkotla Steels & Alloys P Ltd (336 ITR 49) (P&H) (l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2012] ITA 351 of 2012 (Delhi) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236/Mum/2005. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: “34. During the course of assessment, the AO has disallowed the deduction of expenditure incurred on dies and moulds as revenue expenditure to the amount…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…) ITAT AY 1996-97 (ITA No. 1781/Mum/2000) (g) ITAT AY 1995-96 (ITA No. 3493/Mum/1999) (h) ITAT AY 1994-95 (ITA No. 6964/Mum/2014) (i) ITATAY 1993-94 (ITA No.6963/Mum/2014) (j) CIT vs. TVS Motors Ltd [2014] 364 ITR 1 (Mad) (k) Malerkotla Steels & Alloys P Ltd (336 ITR 49) (P&H) (l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2012] ITA 351 of 2012 (Delhi) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236/Mum/2005. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: “34. During the course of assessment, the AO has disallowed the deduction of expenditure incurred on dies and moulds as revenue expenditure to the amount…

TPR AUTOPARTS MFG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 7100/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…) (iv) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Skoda Auto India (P.) Ltd reported in [2019] 107 taxmann.com 423 (Pune - Trib.) (v) CIT vs. Tupperware India (Pvt.) Ltd. [2015] 53 Taxmann.com 232 (Delhi) (vi) CIT vs. Malerkotls Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 49 (P&H) (vii) CIT vs. Aditya Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd. [2014] 36 ITR 490 (Madras) (viii) CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. [2000] 241 ITR 556 (Delhi) (ix) CIT vs. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. in ITA NO. 171/2010 dated. 17.10.2011 (Del) (x) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 191(Delhi) (xi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR…

TPR AUTOPARTS MFG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4744/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Tpr Autoparts Mfg. India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Mayur Batra & Co., Ca, Circle-25(2), 7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct9433D (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Deptt. By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit, Dr & Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-44, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of M/S Teikoku Piston Ring Co. Ltd. (Japan). It Had Been Incorporated On 27.03.2008 With The Main Object To Carry On The Business To Manufacture, Export, Buy & Sell & Otherwise Deal In ‘Moulded’ Automobile Products I.E. Piston Rings, Cylinder Liners, Valve Seat Rings & Other Automotive Parts. It Is The Third Year Of Its Existence, Though Effectively It Is The Second Year Of Production After Its Set Up & Commencement Of Business In The Fy 2009-10. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.6,45,23,822/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Aes, The Assessing Officer Referred The Matter To The Transfer Pricing Officer U/S 92Ca Of The Act For Determination Of The Arm’S Length Price Of Such International Transactions. The Tpo, During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings, Observed That The Assessee Company Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions With Its Aes:- No. Nature Of Transaction Method Amount (In Rs.) Purchase Of Raw 1 5,85,47,963 Materials/Assets/Spares Tnmm Payment Of Royalty 76,32,183 2 Tnmm 3 Reimbursement Of Expenses To Ae 9,14,253 -

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
Section 92C

…URO) (iv) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Skoda Auto India (P.) Ltd reported in [2019] 107 taxmann.com 423 (Pune - Trib.) (v) CIT vs. Tupperware India (Pvt.) Ltd. [2015] 53 Taxmann.com 232 (Delhi) 12 CIT vs. Malerkotls Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 49 (P&H) (vii) CIT vs. Aditya Ferro Alloys (P) Ltd. [2014] 36 ITR 490 (Madras) (viii) CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. [2000] 241 ITR 556 (Delhi) (ix) CIT vs. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. in ITA NO. 171/2010 dated. 17.10.2011 (Del) (x) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 191(Delhi) (xi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR…

M/S. VICHITRA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5048/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…the following judgments:- 1. CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499- Gujarat High Court 2. CIT v. Malhotra Industrial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 635- Punjab & Haryana High Court 3. CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.[2011] 336 ITR 49-- Punjab & Haryana High Court Therefore, in view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer with respect to treating the purchase of machine spare parts as a capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure without any basis are bad in law and liable to be deleted. 31. The Ld. DR relied upon Assessment…

M/S. VICHITRA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5047/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…the following judgments:- 1. CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499- Gujarat High Court 2. CIT v. Malhotra Industrial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 635- Punjab & Haryana High Court 3. CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.[2011] 336 ITR 49-- Punjab & Haryana High Court Therefore, in view of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer with respect to treating the purchase of machine spare parts as a capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure without any basis are bad in law and liable to be deleted. 31. The Ld. DR relied upon Assessment…

CIT v. M/s Malerkotla Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (336 ITR 49) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax