CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.

339 ITR 400High Court2011#12650 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,252 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

revenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37companybusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6255/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

…and allowable under section 37(1). In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises with regard to issue in question. [Para 5]" 13. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Shakti Sugars Ltd 339 ITR 400 (Mad). The Hon'ble High Court, while considering the issue of deductibility of pre-operative expenses held that expenditure on setting up of new unit by way of expansion of existing business is revenue expenditure. The relevant observations of the Court are as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tri…

Olive Bar and Kitchen Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5924/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriolive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. V/S. Acit, Circle-13(1)(1), बनाम Ltd. Mumbai 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Maharashtra-400020 Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Dcit, Circle-13(1)(2), V/S. Olive Bar & Kitchen Pvt. Mumbai बनाम Ltd. R. No. 218, Aayakar 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Bhavan, M K Road, Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Maharashtra-400020 Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaco5346G Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pmnani
Section 250Section 35D(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(lit)Section 37(1)

…and allowable under section 37(1). In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises with regard to issue in question. [Para 5]" 13. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Shakti Sugars Ltd 339 ITR 400 (Mad). The Hon'ble High Court, while considering the issue of deductibility of pre-operative expenses held that expenditure on setting up of new unit by way of expansion of existing business is revenue expenditure. The relevant observations of the Court are as under:- Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tri…

M/S. Balkrishna Live Stock Breeders Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 619/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITA No.169/Bang/2021 M/s. Balkrishna Live Stock Breeders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Balkrishna Live Stock Breeders Pvt. Ltd. No.377/61, 2nd Floor 43rd Cross 9th Main, 5th Block ACIT Vs. Jayanagar Circle 1(1)(2) Bengaluru 560 041. Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACB7373A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Pratibha R., A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2022 O R D E R PER…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Apollo Tyres Ltd

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

ITA/44/2017HC Kerala22 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTDFor Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 35Section 43ASection 92C

…of Income Tax v. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd2 and allowed the claim of assessee as revenue expenditure amounting to Rs.26,97,79,538/-. 4. Mr Christopher Abraham contends that the expenditure does not strictly satisfy the characteristic of 1 (2011) 339 ITR 400 (Mad) 2 (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Del) ITA No.44/2017 -9- revenue expenditure even by a liberal approach or going by the accountancy standards followed by the assessee. The assessee has capitalized the expenditure, and the permissible deduction in such circumstances is only by way of depreciation under Section 40(3)(i) of the Act. The abstract a…

Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1593/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…ment. Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 459 and in CIT v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 400. 9. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s balance sheet showed the capital work-in-progress at `1543/- lakhs which included the fixed assets schedule. According to the Ld. D.R., the new units established by the assessee at Sriperumbudur and Hyderabad are new industrial underta…

Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1592/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…ment. Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 459 and in CIT v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 400. 9. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s balance sheet showed the capital work-in-progress at `1543/- lakhs which included the fixed assets schedule. According to the Ld. D.R., the new units established by the assessee at Sriperumbudur and Hyderabad are new industrial underta…

Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1591/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…ment. Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 459 and in CIT v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 400. 9. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s balance sheet showed the capital work-in-progress at `1543/- lakhs which included the fixed assets schedule. According to the Ld. D.R., the new units established by the assessee at Sriperumbudur and Hyderabad are new industrial underta…

Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 1590/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1590, 1591, 1592 & 1593/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 32(1)(ii)

…ment. Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the assessee has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 459 and in CIT v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 400. 9. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee’s balance sheet showed the capital work-in-progress at `1543/- lakhs which included the fixed assets schedule. According to the Ld. D.R., the new units established by the assessee at Sriperumbudur and Hyderabad are new industrial underta…

CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd. (339 ITR 400) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax