How many judgments cite CIT v. Oxford University Press?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Oxford University Press (108 ITR 166), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Oxford University Press come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 30, Section 36, Section 37(1).

CIT v. Oxford University Press

108 ITR 166High Court1977#4775 most cited

What is CIT v. Oxford University Press authority for?

Expenditure on repairs is revenue in nature if it preserves or maintains an existing asset, rather than creating a new asset or advantage. The duration of the benefit from repairs does not determine if the expenditure is capital.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Oxford University Press · 108 ITR 166 · revenue vs capital expenditure · repairs and renovation · enduring benefit · preservation of asset

Sections most often in play

Section 30 Section 36 Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

free trade zone stpi unit section 80ia(8)section 28(i)foreign tax credit section 10aa computer software section 40(a)(i)section 10a section 30 section 80ia amalgamation

Judgments citing CIT v. Oxford University Press

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)

…09 (Uttaranchal)  CIT Vs. I.C.I. (India) Pvt. Ltd: 139 ITR 105 (CAL)  ACIT Vs India United Mills Limited: 143 ITR 399 (BOM)  CIT Vs. J.K. Industries (P.) Ltd. : 125 ITR 218 (CAL)  CIT Vs. Rex Talkies : 148 ITR 560 (KAR)  CIT Vs. Oxford University Press : 108 ITR 166 (BOM)  CIT Vs. Dasaprakash.: 114 ITR 210 (MAD)  Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla (By His Legal Heirs) Vs. CIT : 097 ITR 24 (BOM) Rambagh Palace Hotels Private Limited ITA No 3605 & 3801/Del/2009 A Y 2006-07 ITA No 1693 & 2078/Del/2013 A Y 2009-10  Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner: 34 TTJ 526 (ITAT Bombay)  CI…

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

The Dy.C.I.T.-10(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Banner Pharma Caps Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2599/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2599/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah

Section 30

…en acquired has been capitalized by the assessee. Hence, no expenditure can be disallowed on this ground. Reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oxford 3 Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Banner Pharma Caps Pvt. Ltd. University Press (108 ITR 166). The A.O. is directed to delete this addition. This ground of appeal if allowed.” 5. We have considered rival contentions and found from record that the assessee has constructed a ware house and also incurred expenses on repairs and maintenance. However, out of total expenditure of Rs.2,66,60,885/- the assessee himself has capitalized a sum of…

Fcg Flameproof Conrol Gears P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6702/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 6702/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Fcg Flameproof The Acit, Range 6(2), Control Gears Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Army & Navy Bldg., 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2688K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :10.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ I.TA No. 6702/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/s. FCG Flameproof The ACIT, Range 6(2), Control Gears Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Army & Navy Bldg., 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACC 2688K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Jitendra Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Pawan Kuma…