CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.

233 ITR 468Supreme Court of India1998#350 most cited

What is CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

246

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. · 233 ITR 468 · Section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · test of enduring benefit · upfront lease rent · no capital asset generated · business deduction · expenditure classification · depreciation for income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 37(1)Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 37Section 10(15)

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feeenduring benefitslump salededuction u/s 80iasection 40a(2)revenue expenditurecapital expenditurebook profitssection 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 558/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. /It(Ss)A No.19/Rpr/2025 Co No.19/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited 8Th Floor, Cbd Complex, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur-492 018 Pan: Aadcm4810C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

…security deposit was on account of non-performance of contract by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.3,44,14,282/- made by the A.O. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto 14. Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has laid down the general principles applicable in determining whether a particular expenditure is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure observing as follows: “Expenditure may be treated as property attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1340/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e reasons given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1339/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e reasons given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1338/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e reasons given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1337/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e reasons given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1336/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…e reasons given by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). 11. The learned CIT-DR Smt. U Mini Chandran, on the other hand, supporting the orders of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital in nature…

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…time, the same would be in the nature of capital expenditure. On the other hand, where there is no certainty of the duration of the advantage and the same could be put to an end at any time, such an expenditure would be a revenue expenditure. 2 (1998) 233 ITR 468 3 (1971) 82 ITR 902 4 (1955) 27 ITR 34 25 12.7. It is the submission of Mr. Vohra that if the aforesaid decisions of this Court in Coal Shipments (supra) and Empire Jute (supra) are read conjointly, the only legal inference that can be drawn is that when the expenditure incurred by the assessee brings into existence a benefit of endu…

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 80

…n lease for a period of 19 years is revenue expenditure. While coming to this conclusion the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Madras Auto Services Ltd. (1998), reported in 233 ITR 468 (SC). The point in issue is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. reported in 296 ITR 702, wherein similar matter was involved and was held that upfront lease rent charges paid for obtaining lease of land and building is revenue expenditure. In view of the aforesaid preposition…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRATEEK APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3099/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…iture, when written off are\nallowable under section 37 of the Actor alternatively as business loss u/s\n28.Attention was also drawn to the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court\nin Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P)\nLtd., reported at (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) wherein while\nconsidering the issue, the Court found that the assessee could not have\nclaimed it as capital expenditure, as there was no capital asset generated\nby spending said amount. The expenditure was held rightly classified as\nrevenue expenditure. In the case of Manganese Ore India\nLtd.(2016) 384 ITR 413 (Bom), it was held that th…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(3), MUMBAI vs. PRATEEK APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED, KARNATAKA

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2936/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

…iture, when written off are\nallowable under section 37 of the Actor alternatively as business loss u/s\n28.Attention was also drawn to the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court\nin Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P)\nLtd., reported at (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) wherein while\nconsidering the issue, the Court found that the assessee could not have\nclaimed it as capital expenditure, as there was no capital asset generated\nby spending said amount. The expenditure was held rightly classified as\nrevenue expenditure. In the case of Manganese Ore India\nLtd.(2016) 384 ITR 413 (Bom), it was held that th…

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 254Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…he sub-lease deed, the nature and purpose of the expenditure, and the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee including Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (supra), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [(1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC)], and Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC)]. Adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee, and a reasoned speaking order shall be passed in accordance with law. 21. Before parting, we deem it necessary to place on record our serious concern over the manner in which the lower authorities—both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC—have failed to comply wi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3234/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3234 & 3059/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Of Income Tax, Ramamandiram, Rajapalayam, Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar District – 626 117, Madurai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcm8375L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiTFor Respondent: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

…ee's favor for AYs 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2003-04. However, the issue has been restored back by Tribunal for AY 2011- 12. In AY 2003-04, Tribunal approved reliance placed by Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (233 ITR 468). The Ld. AR also submitted that though expenditure was capitalized in the books of account and depreciation was charged in the books, however, for Income Tax purpose, no depreciation was claimed on the same. The Ld. AR also placed on record relevant railway siding agreements and submitted that the terms of the agreements remain the same as they…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED, RAJAPAYALAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3059/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3234 & 3059/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Of Income Tax, Ramamandiram, Rajapalayam, Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar District – 626 117, Madurai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcm8375L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiTFor Respondent: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

…ee's favor for AYs 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2003-04. However, the issue has been restored back by Tribunal for AY 2011- 12. In AY 2003-04, Tribunal approved reliance placed by Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (233 ITR 468). The Ld. AR also submitted that though expenditure was capitalized in the books of account and depreciation was charged in the books, however, for Income Tax purpose, no depreciation was claimed on the same. The Ld. AR also placed on record relevant railway siding agreements and submitted that the terms of the agreements remain the same as they…

HI-STYLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 2(2)/CIT(A), CHENNAI

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

ITA 910/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.910/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 Hi-Style India Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1652 G, 2Nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 040. Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aacch2545L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Babu Peram, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

For Appellant: Shri Babu Peram, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…nal in holding the expenditure incurred towards painting, re-laying of the damaged floors, partitions, etc. are revenue expenditure. Further, he drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Services P. Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) and argued that the amount spent on leased premises is revenue expenditure. Further, he referred to another decision in the case of CIT v. Amrutanjan Finance Ltd. [2011] 15 taxmann.com 392 (Mad.), wherein, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the assessee therein is entitled to 100% depreciation on false-ceiling and wooden partition inclu…

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, KILPAUK

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 9/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

…an any departure from the literal rule would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible and which would be destructive of judicial discipline. 12. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., 233 ITR 468 while dealing with a similar controversy has observed as under: "5 In order to decide whether this expenditure is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. What advantage did the assessee get by constructing a building which belonged to somebody else and spending money for such…

ITO,CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LTD, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

…an any departure from the literal rule would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible and which would be destructive of judicial discipline. 12. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., 233 ITR 468 while dealing with a similar controversy has observed as under: "5 In order to decide whether this expenditure is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. What advantage did the assessee get by constructing a building which belonged to somebody else and spending money for such…

ITO, CW-1(1), CHENNAI vs. INSPIRISYS SOLUTIONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2015-2016) & C.O.Nos.5, 6 &7/Chny/2023 (In Ita Nos.9,10 & 11/Chny/2022) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Inspirisys Solutions Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) First Floor, New Door Nos. 57,59,63 & 64, Chennai 600 034. Dowlath Towers, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan: Aaaca 5622M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 14ASection 253

…an any departure from the literal rule would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible and which would be destructive of judicial discipline. 12. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., 233 ITR 468 while dealing with a similar controversy has observed as under: "5 In order to decide whether this expenditure is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. What advantage did the assessee get by constructing a building which belonged to somebody else and spending money for such…

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. ,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…see’s favor for AYs 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2003-04. However, the issue has been restored back by Tribunal for AY 2011-12. In AY 2003-04, Tribunal approved reliance placed by Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (233 ITR 468). The Ld. AR also submitted that though expenditure was capitalized in the books of account and depreciation was charged in the books, however, for Income Tax purpose, no depreciation was claimed on the same. The Ld. AR also placed on record relevant railway siding agreements and submitted that the terms of the agreements remain the same as they…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1897/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…see’s favor for AYs 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2003-04. However, the issue has been restored back by Tribunal for AY 2011-12. In AY 2003-04, Tribunal approved reliance placed by Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (233 ITR 468). The Ld. AR also submitted that though expenditure was capitalized in the books of account and depreciation was charged in the books, however, for Income Tax purpose, no depreciation was claimed on the same. The Ld. AR also placed on record relevant railway siding agreements and submitted that the terms of the agreements remain the same as they…

THE RAMCO CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, MADURAI

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.958/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2196/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Ramco Cements Limited Dcit बनाम (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Corporate Circle -2, Ramamandiram, / Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1274/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1363/Chny/2016 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1897/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit The Ramco Cements Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle -2, (Formerly Known As Madras Cements Ltd) Ramamandiram, Vs. Madurai. Rajapalayam-626 117. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-8375-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.Prabhakar (CA) &For Respondent: Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld.DR

…see’s favor for AYs 1994-95, 1996-97 and 2003-04. However, the issue has been restored back by Tribunal for AY 2011-12. In AY 2003-04, Tribunal approved reliance placed by Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Service (233 ITR 468). The Ld. AR also submitted that though expenditure was capitalized in the books of account and depreciation was charged in the books, however, for Income Tax purpose, no depreciation was claimed on the same. The Ld. AR also placed on record relevant railway siding agreements and submitted that the terms of the agreements remain the same as they…

Showing 1–20 of 246 · Page 1 of 13

...
CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. (233 ITR 468) — Cited in 246 Judgments | BharatTax