CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate

175 ITR 93High Court1989#19548 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…3. The assessee has relied upon a plethora of decisions which has made proposition as to an expenditure would amount to capital or revenue in nature. The Ld.CIT(A), on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of CIT vs Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Mad) wherein it was held that the test of enduring benefit is not certain nor a conclusive test and that it should not be applied plainly and mechanically without referring to particular facts and circumstances of the given 5 ITA 1496/Mum/2019 case. The Ld.CIT(A) has further relied on the decision of CIT vs Cominco Binani Zinc Ltd (1993) 204 ITR…

Kids Clinic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 784/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1533, 9Th Main, Range - 5,Bengaluru. 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aacck 7678 R Assesseee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. Tshering Ongda, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 19.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.1.2021 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…acquisition of any capital or an enduring benefit, merely because such payment is made to get rid of the liability which is much larger, the outgoing amount cannot be considered as capital in nature - CIT vs. Pioneer Engg. Syndicate [1988] 38 Taxman 15141989] 175 ITR 93 (Mad.) - It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned. Page 12 of 16 - If expenditure is so related to the carrying on or conduct of the business that it can be regarded as an integral part of the profit carrying process, and not towards acquisition of an asset or a right of permanent…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…Madras) (iii) CIT v. R.G.S. Industries (1990) 183 ITR 31 Gauhati (1990) 51 Taxman 467 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT v. S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) (v) CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Kerala H.C.) (vi) CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Madras).” The assessee submitted that since the compensation was treated as revenue receipts in the hands of recipient , the same should be treated as revenue expenses in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee whereby it was observed that the assessee was engaged in the business of builders & de…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…Madras) (iii) CIT v. R.G.S. Industries (1990) 183 ITR 31 Gauhati (1990) 51 Taxman 467 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT v. S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) (v) CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Kerala H.C.) (vi) CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Madras).” The assessee submitted that since the compensation was treated as revenue receipts in the hands of recipient , the same should be treated as revenue expenses in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee whereby it was observed that the assessee was engaged in the business of builders & de…

CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (175 ITR 93) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax