CIT v. Orient Ceramic & Industries Ltd.

358 ITR 49High Court2013#4346 most cited

What is CIT v. Orient Ceramic & Industries Ltd. authority for?

Printers are an integral part of computers and are therefore eligible for the higher rate of depreciation applicable to computers. The decision also refers to expenditures on signboards being revenue in nature.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v Orient Ceramic & Industries Ltd. · 358 ITR 49 · printers · integral part of computer · depreciation · revenue expenditure · sign boards

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 115-O of the Income-tax ActSection 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax ActSection 92CA of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 194isection 40a(ia)section 197retrospective amendmentsection 65section 194jsection 40a(2)(b)disallowance of interest expenditurebusiness expediencycommercial expediencysection 36(1)(iii)disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Orient Ceramic & Industries Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Oxigen Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3812/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit Oxigen Services India Pvt. Vs Circle 19 (1) Ltd. Unit No.31, Tribhuvan New Delhi Complex, Ishwar Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi -110065 Pan : Aabci1405K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 36

…psico India Holdings (P) Ltd (20121 207 Taxman 5 (Del). The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd (supra). Reliance is also placed on CIT v. Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 49 (Del). 28. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case considered the advertisement and market expenditure of Rs.3,90,82,609/- incurred by the assessee as capital expendit…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Gi Games Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 1157/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: None

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1157/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. GI Games Private Limited, Corporate Circle -2(1), Vs. C-9, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [PAN: AACCG 6098B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Nataraja, JCIT अपीलाथ% क& ओर से/Appellant b…

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), New Delhi Religare Finvest Ltd., D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan : Aafcs6801H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 28.02.2013, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 28Section 36Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…issue, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: " CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. in ITA No. 1266/2010 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd.: 358 ITR 49 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., ITA No. 1712 and 1714/2010 (Del. H.C.) 27 7.2 On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. (supra) held that the compute…

M/S, Jbm Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3805/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. R. Santhanam, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…20. At the outset, it has been submitted that issue stands covered by decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 47 which has been followed in CIT vs. Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd., reported in 358 ITR 49. 21. Ld. DR is unable to place on record any contrary decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. He places reliance upon order of Ld. AO. 22. We, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (supra) and Orient Ceramics & Industries Ltd (supra) are inclined to uphold findings of Ld…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ralsons (India) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6101/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

…ure for tin plate and glow sign boards on cycle rikshaw etc. even then it has to be allowed in terms of the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P&H) and CIT vs Orient Ceramics & Inds. Ltd. 358 ITR 49. Without referring to any distinguishing fact or legal precedent, the judicial precedent available in assessee’s own case that it is a revenue expenditure, it was submitted has to be followed as even then the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. 6. Ld. Sr.DR was required to address the judgements relying upon by the assessee and refer to a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Encorp E Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…nature. Therefore the expenditure was of revenue nature and the Tribunal had rightly treated it as of revenue nature.” 12. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the similar issue in the case of CIT Vs Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 49 (Del) held that the expenditure on glow sign boards displayed at various outlets were revenue in nature. 13. In the present case also the assessee was incurring the expenses under consideration for its sales promotion and those expenses were incurred from year to year in the regular course of business. Therefore, those were revenue in nature and…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Encorp E Service Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 1799/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 1799/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), M-4, Surya Mansion, Kausalya Park, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 4460 & 4461/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Encorp E Services Ltd., Tax, Circle-11(1), Office No. 202, F-46, Bhagat Singh New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce3129L Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…nature. Therefore the expenditure was of revenue nature and the Tribunal had rightly treated it as of revenue nature.” 12. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court while deciding the similar issue in the case of CIT Vs Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 49 (Del) held that the expenditure on glow sign boards displayed at various outlets were revenue in nature. 13. In the present case also the assessee was incurring the expenses under consideration for its sales promotion and those expenses were incurred from year to year in the regular course of business. Therefore, those were revenue in nature and…