CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

162 ITR 819High Court1986#3037 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. authority for?

Expenses incurred in connection with a public issue of shares or debentures are allowable as revenue expenditure eligible for deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act. This includes expenses related to Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs).

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. · section 35D · preliminary expenses · public issue of shares · debentures · QIB expenditure · revenue expenditure · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 35DSection 271(1)(c)Section 14ASection 80A(5)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80-IA(4)Section 1512

Issues it is cited on

section 2(d)section 57(i)section 35dpreliminary expensessection 46section 46asection 80a(5)interest on refundtransferor companysection 36(1)(viia)section 35section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5413/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…buyers are only a class of investors, the issue of shares to QIB have been considered as public issue. The expenses in connection with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, the QIB expenditure can be treated as revenue expenditure and eligible for deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act is confirmed. Hence on merits of the issue as well as the fact that the same issue has been allowed in the earlier years and the Department cannot come upon in appeals in the subseque…

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5412/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…buyers are only a class of investors, the issue of shares to QIB have been considered as public issue. The expenses in connection with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, the QIB expenditure can be treated as revenue expenditure and eligible for deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act is confirmed. Hence on merits of the issue as well as the fact that the same issue has been allowed in the earlier years and the Department cannot come upon in appeals in the subseque…

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue for AY 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 5411/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 40

…buyers are only a class of investors, the issue of shares to QIB have been considered as public issue. The expenses in connection with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, the QIB expenditure can be treated as revenue expenditure and eligible for deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act is confirmed. Hence on merits of the issue as well as the fact that the same issue has been allowed in the earlier years and the Department cannot come upon in appeals in the subseque…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2171/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2170/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2169/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 659/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 658/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1608/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR &
Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…e. Before us, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has relied upon the following case-laws to contend that the preliminary expenses incurred for increase in authorised capital are allowable u/s.35-D of the Act. 1. In the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (1986) 162 ITR 819 (MP HC). 2. In the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 256 CTR 104 (Madras HC). ITA Nos.1068/Ahd/2014, 658 & 659/Ahd/2016 and ITA Nos.2168 to 2171/Ahd/2018 M.S. Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. The Jt.CIT Range-4 Asst.Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15 3. In the case of CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 151 (Rajasthan HC). 4. (2017) 80 taxmann.c…

DY. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S INDO GULF FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALSCOEPORATION LTD, SULTANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 1539/LKW/1996[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 256(1)Section 32ASection 35D

…ars 1. Y. Manjula Reddy V. I.T.O. (Bangalore-Trib.) [2002] 140 taxmann.com 441 2. Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. CIT-II [2016] 388 ITR 1 (SC) 3. Vatika Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 204 (Delhi-Trib.) 4. CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP HC) 5. CIT vs. Multi Metals Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 151 (Raj. (HC) 6. Scientific Engg. House (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1985] 157 ITR 86 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. [1974] 96 ITR 672 (Guj. HC) 8. CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd. [1999] 241 ITR 509 (Del. HC) 9. Chief Commissioner Admn vs. Visveswarayya Iron & Steel Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 98 (Kar.…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT. RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…. 18-19) (c) ITAT - AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05, para no. 94, page no. 46) (d) ITAT -AY 1998-99 (ITA 8952/Mum/2004, para no. 14, pg. no 8) (e) ITAT -AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001, para no. 51 to 52, Pg. no. 37 to 38) (f) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (g) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007) (h) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236 & 4372/Mum/2005. The extract of the relevant decision is reproduced asunder: “6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed o…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…-19) (c) ITAT - AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05, para no. 94, page no. 46) (d) ITAT -AY 1998-99 (ITA 8952/Mum/2004, para no. 14, pg. no 8) No. (e) ITAT -AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001, para no. 51 to 52, Pg. no. 37 to 38) (f) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (g) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007) (h) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236 & 4372/Mum/2005. The extract of the relevant decision is reproduced as under: “6. Considered the rival submissions and material place…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…-19) (c) ITAT - AY 2000-01 (ITA No. 3055/Mum/05, para no. 94, page no. 46) (d) ITAT -AY 1998-99 (ITA 8952/Mum/2004, para no. 14, pg. no 8) No. (e) ITAT -AY 1997-98 (ITA No. 5030/Mum/2001, para no. 51 to 52, Pg. no. 37 to 38) (f) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) (g) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007) (h) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) We have perused the decision of ITAT vide ITA No. 4236 & 4372/Mum/2005. The extract of the relevant decision is reproduced as under: “6. Considered the rival submissions and material place…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…undertaking was not completed. Copy of Assessment Order for AY 1995-96 is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) b) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007 c) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) 50. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 51. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, from the submissions of the parties, we observe that the assessee has incurred expe…

M/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…undertaking was not completed. Copy of Assessment Order for AY 1995-96 is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) b) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007 c) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) 50. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 51. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, from the submissions of the parties, we observe that the assessee has incurred expe…

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3501/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…ion with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence o CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence o CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue expendi…

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3239/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/Ms. Ayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, DR
Section 14ASection 251

…ion with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence o CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence o CIT v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. [1986] 162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue merits of the issue, theQIB expenditure can be treated as revenue expendi…

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…tment Ltd was not completed. Copy of Assessment Order for AY 1995-96 is placed on record, Letter dated 11 February 2000 submitted before the Assessing Officer. 49. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - a) CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. (162 ITR 819) b) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1463/Ahd/2007 c) S.S.I. Limited vs. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) (Chn) 50. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 51. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, from the submissions of the parties, we observe that the assessee has incurred ex…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 523/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…ing as under: 30. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this regard, we find pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. 162 ITR 819 cited above. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: The word 'being' has been used in section 35D(2)(c )(iv) by way of illustration and is not restricted only to the words 'underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus'. There are the following stages in con…

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 472/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 1Section 143(3)

…ing as under: 30. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this regard, we find pertinent to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. 162 ITR 819 cited above. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: The word 'being' has been used in section 35D(2)(c )(iv) by way of illustration and is not restricted only to the words 'underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus'. There are the following stages in con…

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2