How many judgments cite CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd.?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd. (52 ITR 153), spanning 2013 to 2021.

CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd.

52 ITR 153High Court1964#4245 most cited

What is CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred to create a new asset or an advantage of enduring nature is not deductible under section 10(2)(v). This expenditure is considered capital in nature.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd. · 52 ITR 153 · section 10(2)(v) · capital expenditure · enduring benefit · deduction · repairs · asset creation

Judgments citing CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd.

Rm.K.V.Silks Private Limited, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

Section 47

…ied out periodically. The learned Judge agreed with the view taken by the Patna High Court in CIT v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd [1956] 29 ITR 21 and by the Madras High Court in CIT v. SriRama Sugar Mills Ltd [1952] 21 ITR 191 . 4. In Liberty Cinema v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 153, P.B. Mukharji, J., speaking for a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, held that an expenditure incurred with a view to bring into existence a new asset or an advantage of enduring nature cannot qualify for deduction under section 10(2)(v). 5. In our opinion, the test evolved by Chagla, CJ., in New Shorrock Spg. &Mfg. Co. Ltd. 's case (supr…

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)

…t the same had in fact been followed by the majority of the High Courts in India, and was, rather, in agreement with the view expressed earlier as well, as in CIT v. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 21 (Patna) and CIT v. Sri Rama Sugar Mills Ltd. [1952] 21 ITR 191 (Mad). The Hon'ble Court had, once again, an occasion to consider 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, affirmin…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…upports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pillai v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 636 (Mad); 9 Hiranandani Akruti JV g) CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd.,(1951) 19 ITR 558, 569-70 (Mad). Also see, Lachminarayan Modi v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 322 (Orissa); h) J…

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)

…anufacturing 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 Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited, vs CIT 27 ITR 34 (SC) • Bikaner Gypsums Limited, vs CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) 1% • Commi…

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)

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…upports our view:- a) CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd., (1969) 72 ITR 319, 325 (Cal); b) CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1966) 62 ITR 827 (Cal); c) Premier Construction Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 62 ITR 176 (Bom); d) Liberty Cinema v. CIT, (1964) 52 ITR 153, 167 (Cal); Transport Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 46 ITR e) 1009, 1016 (Mad); Transport Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 259, 266-7 (Mad); f) G. Veerappa Pillai v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 636 (Mad); g) CIT v. Raman & Raman Ltd.,(1951) 19 ITR 558, 569-70 (Mad). Also see, Lachminarayan Modi v. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 322 (Orissa); h) J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. v.…

Kamlesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Accounts Of The Assessee Are Audited One, Therefore, The Addition Is Purely On The Basis Guess Work. Our Attention Was Invited To Exhibit A (Pages 1 & 2) & Exhibit D Containing Ledger Of Transportation, Octroi & Staff Welfare Expenses.

…a jurisdictional High Court in Ramanand Sagar vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom.) and also Laxmit Narayan Madanlal 86 ITR 439 (SC) from Hon’ble Apex Court supports our view. Identical ratio was laid down in Dalmia Jain & company Ltd. 33 ITR 294 (Pat.), Liberty Cinema 52 ITR 153 (Cal.) and Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 269 ITR 263 (Raj.). 8 Kamlesh S. Mehta 3.4. Section 28 of the Act deals with profit & gains of business or profession, whereas, section 37 of the Act deals with allowabiltiy of any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature describe in section 30 to 36) and not being in the nature…

Surinder Madan

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/364/2013HC Delhi22 Aug 2013

Section 260ASection 30

…ITA 364/2013 Page 1 of 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 364/2013 Reserved on: 5th August, 2013 % Date of Decision: 22nd August, 2013 SURINDER MADAN ....Appellant Through Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate. Versus ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(1), NEW DELHI …Respondent Through…