Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. B.V. Ramachandrappa And Sons.

191 ITR 34High Court1991#17083 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. B.V. Ramachandrappa And Sons.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3041/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…d V. Dy. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (Bang - ITAT) iii) CIT V. Escorts Finance Ltd (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi) iv) Fition Hotel V. ITO (2008 40-A BCA) 293 - ITAT- Mumbai) v) CIT V. Rex Talkies (1984) 148 ITR 560 (Kar) vi) CIT V. B.V.Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar) vii) CIT V. HEDE Consultancy (P) Ltd (2003) 127 Taxman 597 (Bom) viii) CIT V. Bharat Commercial Corpn., (1997) 226 ITR 242 (Pat) ix) Banashankari Medial & Oncology Research Centre Ltd V. Asstt. CIT (IT Appeal No.1217/Bang/07) (Bang- ITAT). (x) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 102 taxmann.com 218 (SC). (xi) CIT vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd. 99…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Global Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3040/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 43A

…d V. Dy. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (Bang - ITAT) iii) CIT V. Escorts Finance Ltd (2006) 155 Taxman 559 (Delhi) iv) Fition Hotel V. ITO (2008 40-A BCA) 293 - ITAT- Mumbai) v) CIT V. Rex Talkies (1984) 148 ITR 560 (Kar) vi) CIT V. B.V.Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar) vii) CIT V. HEDE Consultancy (P) Ltd (2003) 127 Taxman 597 (Bom) viii) CIT V. Bharat Commercial Corpn., (1997) 226 ITR 242 (Pat) ix) Banashankari Medial & Oncology Research Centre Ltd V. Asstt. CIT (IT Appeal No.1217/Bang/07) (Bang- ITAT). (x) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 102 taxmann.com 218 (SC). (xi) CIT vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd. 99…

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

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…nly on the ground that the expenditure resulted in enduring benefit. We are of the view that this is not the only test for holding that expenditure is capital in nature. Hon. Karnataka High court in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. B.V. Ramachandrappa And Sons [191 ITR 34] [Karn] while deciding the issue of compound wall has held as under :- “5. The distinction between repair and reconstruction is quite narrow and the meaning attributable to the word "repair" depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It is generally understood that repair involves renewal; renewal of a part; of a subordinate part... rep…

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

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…nly on the ground that the expenditure resulted in enduring benefit. We are of the view that this is not the only test for holding that expenditure is capital in nature. Hon. Karnataka High court in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. B.V. Ramachandrappa And Sons [191 ITR 34] [Karn] while deciding the issue of compound wall has held as under :- “5. The distinction between repair and reconstruction is quite narrow and the meaning attributable to the word "repair" depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It is generally understood that repair involves renewal; renewal of a part; of a subordinate part... rep…

Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 720/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.N. Maurya, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 619(3)(b)

…ire fence around the compound by a compound wall is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure came up ITA No. 720/Mds/2015. :- 14 -: for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. B.V. Ramachandrappa & Sons (1991) 97 CTR (Kar) 180 : (1991) 191 ITR 34 (Kar), applying the well- settled principles laid down by the House of Lords, Privy Council, apex Court as well as by the decision of several other High Courts, referred supra, the Karnataka High Court held as follows : " .. The purpose of the fence around the business premises was to prevent trespassers and thieves from entering into the business…

Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. B.V. Ramachandrappa And Sons. (191 ITR 34) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax