CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash

237 ITR 902High Court1999#4906 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.MFAR HOTELS & RESORTS LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail: A.Y. : 2011-12 C.O. No. 13/Coch/2015 : A.Y. : 2011-12 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 335/Coch/15)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250

…incurred towards repairs and replacement of old parts would be in the nature of revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.” 15. We find that similar findings were rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Ooty Dasaprakash, reported in (1999) 237 ITR 902 (Madras), in the case of a taxpayer who was running the hotel business at Ooty and incurred expenditure for repairing and modernising the hotel and replacing the existing component of the building, furniture and fittings. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the aforesaid decision, are reproduced as follows: – “8. In the in…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 1 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1012/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 944/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 943/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

DCIT LTU-1 , CHENNAI vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 942/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 941/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 940/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 939/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (LTU) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 938/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

DCIT LTPU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1089/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…as revenue expenditure. 25 ITA Nos.936-944/CHNY/2018 ITA No.1089/CHNY/18 & ITA No.1012/CHNY/19 2.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) has held that construction of building on lease hold land is admissible as revenue expenditure. 2.3 The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the ITAT order in the assesse’s own case for previous assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer to allow all expenses of revenue nature instead…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…Tea Estate (P) Ltd. - 198 ITR 535 (Cal) (viii). Nila Products - 148 ITR 99 (Bom) (ix). Bhagat Industries Corporation - 126 ITR 645 (P&H) (x). Girdhari Dass & Sons - 105 ITR 339 (All) (xi). Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. - 27 ITR 34 (SC) (xii). Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) (xiii). B and A Plantation and Industries - 242 ITR 22 (Gau) (xiv). HEDE Consultancy P Ltd. - 258 ITR 380 (Bom) Software: (xv). CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. 346 ITR 138 (Bom) 12. Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 13. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in th…

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITTA/67/2001HC Telangana07 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

…hand submitted that the facts in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) were closer to the facts of this case and that the impugned order cannot be characterized as unreasonable. He also relied upon the Madras High Court ruling in CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash, (1999) 237 ITR 902. 5. In our opinion, in this case, the ITAT has not adequately dealt with the reasoning of the CIT(A) who had, in fact, carried out the site inspection after which he held that the entire expenses had to be treated as revenue expenditure. We also notice that the ITAT does not clearly point to the creation of any new asset. Rather, it is onl…

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 394/PAN/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…enue field or in the capital field and facts are very relevant to be taken note of. This would be the approach while deciding such cases. 13. Now, we may proceed to discuss the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ooty Dasaprakash (reported in [1999] 237 ITR 902). We refer to this decision because this is more or less an identical case to that of the assessee before us. The Division Bench held that the expenditure was incurred solely for repairs and modernizing the hotel and replacing the existing components of the building, furniture and fittings, with a view to create a conducive and beautiful atmosphe…

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 393/PAN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…enue field or in the capital field and facts are very relevant to be taken note of. This would be the approach while deciding such cases. 13. Now, we may proceed to discuss the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ooty Dasaprakash (reported in [1999] 237 ITR 902). We refer to this decision because this is more or less an identical case to that of the assessee before us. The Division Bench held that the expenditure was incurred solely for repairs and modernizing the hotel and replacing the existing components of the building, furniture and fittings, with a view to create a conducive and beautiful atmosphe…

M/S.KOVILAKAM HOTEL P LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT,, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…e not entitled to, since they are not the owners. However, it cannot be stated that whatever is spent by the lessees or tenants should always be regarded as a capital expenditure.” iii) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ooty Dasaprakash (237 ITR 902), affirming the decision of the Tribunal, had held that the expenditure incurred solely for repairs and modernizing the hotel and replacing the existing components of the building, furniture and fittings, with a view to create a conducive and beautiful atmosphere for the purpose of running the business of a hotel was an allowable deduction. It w…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…(Del)  CIT vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra P. Ltd.: 322 ITR 590  CIT v. Bharat Cinema : 121 ITR 165 (HC) (P&H)  CIT & Anr. vs. Sagar Talkies : 217 CTR 74 (HC) (Kar)  Tuticorin Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT : 261 ITR 291 (HC) (Mad)  CIT vs. Ooty Dasaprakash: 237 ITR 902 (HC) (Mad)  CIT vs Lake Palace Hotel and Motels P. Ltd.: 258 ITR 562 (HC) (Raj)  CIT v. Wolkem (P.) Ltd. Co. : 258 ITR 350 (Raj) (HC) Gujarat Guradian Limited V DCIT DCIT V Gujarat Guradian Limited A Y 2010-11 ITA No 1106 & 973/Del/2015  CIT vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. [224 Taxman 188 (Kar – Mag)] [2014]  CIT vs. Nizam…

DCIT, MADURAI vs. PANDYAN HOTELS LIMITED, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kurian Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 142ASection 143(3)

…he purpose and, in fact, representing an improvement to the existing asset. We, accordingly, do not consider it necessary to distinguish individually the case law furnished, each of which we have though perused. For instance, in CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash [1999] 237 ITR 902 (Mad), being by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, there is, with respect, no finding as to the expenditure under reference answering the description of ‘current repairs’ as laid down in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) (which, as afore-noted, is the same as for repairs, as expounded in New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra)) or even to the…

ADDLL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RAMBAGH PALACE HOTEL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…5 to 7 crores is the annual repair and maintenance expenditure of the assessee. He reiterated all the submissions made before the ld CIT(A), and also referred to the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Dasaprakash.: 114 ITR 210 (MAD) b. CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD) c. CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. [2004] 136 Taxman 312/265 ITR 109 (Uttaranchal) d. CIT Vs. MAC Charles (India) Ltd. 233 Taxman 177 (karn) e. DCIT Vs. Indo Continental Hotel and Resorts Ltd 321 ITR 610 (Rajasthan) f. United Hotel Limited Vs. ACIt ITA No. 3225/Del/2012 (Del Tribunal) Rambagh Palace Hotels Private Limited ITA No 3605 & 3801…

RAMABAGH PALACE HOTELS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…5 to 7 crores is the annual repair and maintenance expenditure of the assessee. He reiterated all the submissions made before the ld CIT(A), and also referred to the following decisions: a. CIT Vs. Dasaprakash.: 114 ITR 210 (MAD) b. CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash : 237 ITR 902 (MAD) c. CIT v. Hotel Control (P.) Ltd. [2004] 136 Taxman 312/265 ITR 109 (Uttaranchal) d. CIT Vs. MAC Charles (India) Ltd. 233 Taxman 177 (karn) e. DCIT Vs. Indo Continental Hotel and Resorts Ltd 321 ITR 610 (Rajasthan) f. United Hotel Limited Vs. ACIt ITA No. 3225/Del/2012 (Del Tribunal) Rambagh Palace Hotels Private Limited ITA No 3605 & 3801…

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…td. 13 ITR 385 (Mad) 3) Instalment Supply Put. Ltd Vs. CIT [149 ITR 52 (Del)] Page 27 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 4) Allied Metal Products Vs. CIT 1137 ITR 689 P&HJ 5,) CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash [237 ITR 902 (Mad)/ 6) Kotak Securities Vs Addl. CIT (supra) 7) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2006) (Del) 205 CTR Del 574 8) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (supra) 5.5.7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the assessee’s claim of repairs and maintenance is allowed. Ground No. 4 i…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2