How many judgments cite CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.?

109 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd. (293 ITR 201), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 32, Section 115JB, Section 133(6), Section 154, Section 31.

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.

293 ITR 201Supreme Court of India2007#984 most cited

What is CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure for replacement of machinery parts qualifies as 'current repairs' under Section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act if it does not result in a new asset or substantially enhance the existing asset's life. For Section 31(i), the critical factor is whether the expense constitutes current repairs, making the general revenue vs. capital distinction less relevant for that specific section.

109

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. · 293 ITR 201 · Section 31(i) Income Tax Act · current repairs · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · replacement of machinery parts · new asset creation · enhancement of life · deductibility of repairs · Section 32 · business income deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 115JB Section 133(6)Section 154 Section 31 Section 37 Section 40A(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 31 enduring benefit revenue expenditure capital expenditure previous year transfer section 143 company business prescribed section 143(3)india

Judgments citing CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.

The Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), Vadodara vs. Belgium Glass & Ceramics P. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for want of tax effect, whereas the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 549/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhasstt.Year 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 268A

…e were incurred, then that would not result in increase of capacity of vessels or any new advantage or any capital asset will come into existence. Hence, such expenditure is allowable to the assessee. However, in the case of CIT Vs. Sarvana Spg. Mills P.Ltd., 293 ITR 201, Hon’ble Supreme Court find that in a textile mill there were several departments, and each department there are several machines performing different functions, in such situation repairs/substitution of an old machine would not come within the definition of “current repairs”. In other words, if the expenditure incurred by the assessee ITA No.54…

Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 688/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.688/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., D.C.I.T., Near Ipcl Complex, Circle-1(1), Vs. Baroda-390007. P.O Petrochemicals, At Ranoli, Dist. Baroda-391346. Pan: Aaacg8896M आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.937/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T, Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., Circle-1(1), Near Ipcl Complex, Vs. Baroda-390007. P.O Petrochemicals, At Ranoli, Dist. Baroda-391346. Pan: Aaacg8896M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,57,77,910 made on account of disallowance of expenditure for replacement of re-membraning cells - II disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme CourFlrTtRenifase of CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SQ. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in considering the 'tonners' as 'gas cylinders' and accordingly directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% on chlorine tonners instead of 15% applicable to plant and machinery of Caustic Chlorine Plant. 4. On the facts and in the circu…

M/S Fine Blanking Pvt. Ltd., Hubli vs. JCIT, Hubli

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

ITA 393/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…e expenditure is “current repairs”. The basic test is to find out whether expenditure is incurred to “preserve and maintain” an already existing asset and the expenditure must not be to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new advantage vide [2007] 293 ITR 201 (SC) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd.) (ii) Under Section 31(i), the deduction admissible is only for current repairs. Therefore, the question as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee conceptually is revenue or capital in nature is not relevant for deciding the question whether such expenditure comes w…

DCIT, Cir - 11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Phoenix Conveyor Belt India Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: : Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate

Section 31

…nown as bunbury mixture used in the manufacturing process and there was no addition or expansion of the profit making apparatus. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spg. Mills (P) Ltd. reported in [2007] 293 ITR 201 and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Middas Rubber (P) Ltd. reported in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 112 (Ker) and argued that it is an allowable deduction. For ready reference the relevant portion at pages 65 and 67 supporting the submission of the ld. AR is reproduced herein below: “b) Serial no. II With reference to the subjec…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…ks partition, replacement of electrical wiring, earthing, replacement of GI pipes etc. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering its earlier judgement in Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. and judgement of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd 293 ITR 201 and in the case of Ballimal Naval Kishore Vs. CIT 224 ITR 414 found that the assessee's claim has to be allowed u/s. 30(a) (i). The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are reproduced hereunder: "After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and examined the decisions cited by them, we are of the view that t…

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

…e gross book value, e.g. an increase in capacity. AR further placed reliance in this regard on the following decisions:  Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 124 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills 66 ITR 710 (SC)  CIT v. Sarvana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. : 293 ITR 201 (SC)  Comfort Living Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: 363 ITR 182 (Del)  CIT vs. Volga Restaurant: 253 ITR 405 (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.…

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1013/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma

Section 115JSection 143(2)

…(2)(v) is a deduction where the expenditure is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.” This view has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. reported as 293 ITR 201. 6 ITA No. 1013/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11 In the present case there is no finding by the authorities below that the change of spare/part of machinery has increased productivity of machine, or a new asset has come into existence or new advantage is being derived from the machine. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the expenditure has bee…

ACIT, Sambalpur vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…the ground of documentary evidence. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition treating the claim of expenditure as revenue expenditure 63 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., following the decision of Hon’ble apex court in the case of Sarvana Spg. Mills Pvt Ltd., 293 ITR 201(SC) and Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Vishal Paper Industries, 351 ITR 578(P&H). No contrary decision was placed on record by the revenue. Hence, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. 148. The next issue relates to deletion of addition towards per tax of Rs.168.54 lakhs for the assessment…

DCIT, Circle -1, Dindigul vs. Shri Renuga Textiles Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 2142/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Assessee by None

Section 31Section 8O

…ng the addition made by the AO treating the replacement of the ring frames as capital expenditure. It was submitted that the issue is now covered by the :- 3 -: decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd., reported in 293 ITR 201. 5.2 We have considered the rival submissions. 5.3 A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd., (supra) referred to supra shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: (iii) That each machine including the ring frame was an independent and separate machine capable of independen…

Sarang & Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 31/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sarang & Associates Vs. Dcit Cen Cir 36, 302, Shabnam Apartment Mumbai 33, S.V.Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aaafs0638J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ng & Associates expenditure in the past as and when the need arose and it was towards preserving and maintaining the existing asset. This issue is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201(SC). In the present case the Department doubted the nature of the expenditure considering the magnitude of the expenditure incurred in the current year compared to the expenditure in the earlier years. We are of the view that the authorities below had acted on the presumption that a part of the building had been demolished and that the items had…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hjyderabad vs. M/S. Suryalatha Spinning Mills Limited

ITTA/158/2006HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.B.Narasimha SarmaFor Respondent: Mr.Challa Gunaranjan

Section 37Section 7Section 80H

…d (3 supra). 4. In this view of the matter, the substantial question of law No.1 raised in these appeals is answered in favour of the revenue and, 2 (2005) 275 ITR 403 (Mad) 3 (2011) 11 SCC 656 4 (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC) CVNR,J & TA, J I.T.T.A.Nos.157, 158&261 of 2006 Date: 03.01.2018 4 accordingly, on this aspect, the common order of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, party allowed in favour of the revenue only on substantial question of law No.1, while confirming the order of the Tribunal on substantial question o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad vs. M/S Suryavanshi Spinning Mills Ltd, Sp Road, Secunderabad

ITTA/261/2006HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.B.Narasimha SarmaFor Respondent: Mr.Challa Gunaranjan

Section 37Section 7Section 80H

Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 3077/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Vasundhara Upmanyu, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 3077 to 3079/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2006-07) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Gujan Tower, Off Alembic, Gorwa Road, Baroda-23 Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara - 07 Respondent & ITA No. 3115 to 3120/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2006-07 ) The DCIT, Cir.1(1), Baroda Appellant Vs. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd., Materials Bhavan,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…ir and maintenance of an asset in order to keep in working condition is revenue expenditure but replacement of complete asset by another asset is capital expenditure. This proposition of law now settled by the apex court in the case of Sarvana Spg. Mills Ltd. 293 ITR 201. The relevant portion of this citation is reproduced below: ………………. Therefore, the claim of the assessee to be extent to Rs.28,17,090/- during the course of purchase of two DG Sets is disallowed. This expenditure is simultaneously held to be capital expenditure and depreciation for half year (date of purchase 17.02.2007) @ 15% p.a. is being allow…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

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)

…nsider the issue qua repair to plant and machinery, 4 Dy. CIT v. Pandyan Hotels Ltd. admissible u/s. 31, which is pari materia to s. 30, allowing deduction, inter alia, on account of repairs to a building, in CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 201 (SC). It, affirming its decision in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra), held as under: ‘(i)…… (ii) that to decide the applicability of section 31(i) the test was not whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature, but whether the expenditure was "current repairs". The basic test was to find out whether expenditure was incurred to "preserv…

Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistry-ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari and Ms.Arju Goradia-DR

Section 115JSection 254(1)

…owed as revenue expenditure for current repairs or had to be capitalised for depreciation purposes. He placed reliance on the case of Molex Mafatlal Micron Ltd. (ITA/1083/Ahd/2007), Indian Molasses Co. P.Ltd. (37 ITR 66) Saravanna Spinning Mills Private Ltd. (293 ITR 201). 2.2.1.The Authorised Representative (AR) contended that the issues stand decided in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal. He further contended that the DR had made 933/M/15(08-09);758/M/15(08-09;759/M/15(10-11);760/M/15(11-12)- submissions that were factually incorrect or they were not supported by any documentary evidence,that…

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Add.CIT., Bharuch Range, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2930/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)

…of stores and spares to the tune of Rs.1,13,97,990/- only, as against disallowance of Rs.2,12,01,483/- on this count made by AO. (b) relying upon earlier years decision held in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills 293 ITR 201, ignoring that facts for A.Y.2008-09 were different. ITA No.2921/Ahd/2013 & ITA No. 2930/Ahd/2013 DCIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 ii. allowing deprecation amounting to Rs.5,73,297/- on assets given on lease by assessee, who was not engaged in leasing business under mere financial arrangement. 5. The rele…

The Dcitbharuch Circle, Bharuch vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2921/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 143(3)

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)

…d on several case laws to substantiate his viewpoint: • Ballimal Naval Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Work…