CIT v. Manganese Ore India Ltd.

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

…rt 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 the decision to\nabandon project, balance deferred revenue expenditure relating to said\nproject would be deemed to arise in relevant year. The assessee was\nrunning a project which was not making profits. Therefore, it was\nabandoned and entire expenses, including balance deferred revenue\nexpenditure were written off dur…

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

…rt 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 the decision to\nabandon project, balance deferred revenue expenditure relating to said\nproject would be deemed to arise in relevant year. The assessee was\nrunning a project which was not making profits. Therefore, it was\nabandoned and entire expenses, including balance deferred revenue\nexpenditure were written off dur…

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

…Cellular Ltd. (2016) 76 taxman.com 77 (see pages 208 to 211 of the note filed on 25th September) ii. PCIT v. Trigent Software Ltd.(2023) 147 taxman.com 52 (see pages 212 to 216 of the note filed on 25th September 2023) and iii. CIT v. Manganese Ore India Ltd. 384 ITR 413. 101. In view of the above, it is submitted that the said project related expenditure may be allowed as a deduction. 102. Further, Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 1990-91 in ITA/4568/M/03 dated 10.11.2015 Pg 77-81, Para 39 (Gr. No. 16-iii) and for the A.Y. 1990…

THE GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Somaiya Properties & Investments Private Limited, (Formerly known as the Godavari Sugar Mills Private Limited), 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 [PAN: AAACT50004A] ……………… Appellant ACIT, Range 2(1), Vs Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee :Sh. Vipul Joshi For the Respondent/Department :Sh. Bomakesh Pradip Kumar Panda Date of conclusion of hearing : 10.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 31.01.202…