Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 195, Section 37(1), Section 132, Section 143(2).

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited (223 ITR 112)

Q: What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited authority for?

The issuance of bonus shares by capitalizing profits does not result in an increase in the company's capital employed or an expansion of its profit-making apparatus.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited?

64 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited (223 ITR 112), spanning 2006 to 2026.

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd, Rajam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…TR 544. It was also contended that contractual obligation and legal liability are not the touch stone to test commercial expediency, and relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63, CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 223 ITR 112 (Kar.), Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC. The authorised representative also referred to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. (77 ITR 119), stating that the Revenue authority cannot substitute its own view of how the assessee's business affairs should be managed. Thus it was contended that the…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited, Rajam vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…TR 544. It was also contended that contractual obligation and legal liability are not the touch stone to test commercial expediency, and relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63, CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 223 ITR 112 (Kar.), Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC. The authorised representative also referred to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. (77 ITR 119), stating that the Revenue authority cannot substitute its own view of how the assessee's business affairs should be managed. Thus it was contended that the…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…TR 544. It was also contended that contractual obligation and legal liability are not the touch stone to test commercial expediency, and relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63, CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 223 ITR 112 (Kar.), Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC. The authorised representative also referred to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. (77 ITR 119), stating that the Revenue authority cannot substitute its own view of how the assessee's business affairs should be managed. Thus it was contended that the…

The DCIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…TR 544. It was also contended that contractual obligation and legal liability are not the touch stone to test commercial expediency, and relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63, CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 223 ITR 112 (Kar.), Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC. The authorised representative also referred to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. (77 ITR 119), stating that the Revenue authority cannot substitute its own view of how the assessee's business affairs should be managed. Thus it was contended that the…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. (T.P) A. No.799/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s. Infosys Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100. …. Appellant. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 11, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T. (T.P) A. No.942/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore-560 100. ….. Respondent. Assessee By : Shri H.N. Khincha, C.A. Revenue By : Shri…

M/S.Cpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 1596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazcpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., 21/30, Prestige Craig House, Craig Park Layout, M.G Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Aaccp8208P. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(2)

…laim or modify a claim at any stage of proceedings so that the assessing authority can correctly assess the tax liability in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (229 ITR 137) has held that when the assessment is not u/s 143(1) of the Act, the appellate authority may permit the assessee to claim a deduction or exemption in appeal. It is ITA No.1596/B/16 6 prayed that in view of the facts of the case and in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the ld CIT(A)/AO be directed to admit the assessee’s claim…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…of provisions in the I.T.Act which 7 M/s Surya Gems require the assessee to follow a different method than followed in its books of account. In this regard, the Assessing Officer referred to the decision in the case of CIT v. Motor Industries Company Limited (229 ITR 137), wherein, it has been held that the income tax law does not allow as expenses all the deductions a prudent trader would make in computing his profits. It is only the actual liability in present which is allowable and not liability in future which for the time being, is only contingent. It was also held that what a prudent trader sets apart to me…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3532/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit 10(1) बनाम/ M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Rna Corporate Park, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 C.O. No.143/Mum/2014 (I.T.A. No. 3532/Mum/2013) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. बनाम/ Dcit 10(1) Ltd. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, Rna Corporate Park, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm4036H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri L.N. MalikFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई"ायपीठ‘बी’मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ीजी.एस.प"ू,लेखा सद", एवं"ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3532/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) DCIT 10(1) बनाम/ M/s. Music Broadcast Pvt. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. 4th Floor, M. K. Marg, 5th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 RNA Corporate Park, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 C.O. No.143/Mum/2014 (I.T.A. No. 3532/Mum/2013) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Music Broadcast Pvt. बनाम/ DCIT 10(…

Stovec Industries Ltd, Gujrat vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2812/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2812/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Stovec Industries Ltd. Addl.Cit, Range- 2(3) Room No.555, 5Th Floor Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Post Narol, Ahmedabad Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Gujarat-382 405. Mumbai-20. Pan:Aabcs 7223 D आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2449/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Addl.Cit, Range- 2(3) M/S. Stovec Industries Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-20. Gujarat-382 405. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ravi Sawana सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 29.01.13 Of Cit(A)-6, Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Rotary Screens Etc.Filed Its Return Of Income On 31. 10.2007,Declaring Income Of Rs.5.52 Crores. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18.12.09 U/S. 143(3)Of The Act,Determining Income Of The Assessee At Rs.8,88,79,430/- .

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…Plate product, that the compensation amount was determined at Rs.2.05 crores,that it had claimed that same was an allowable expenditure,as it had been incurred in the normal course of business.The assessee relied upon the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd.(223 ITR 112).The AO held that the above-mentioned judgment was pronounced in the year 1996 and pertain to the assessment year 1978-79.He referred to the case of TI Diamond Chain Ltd.(274 ITR 59),wherein the compensation paid on termination of a selling agency was held to be a capital expenditure.Referring to the facts of the case under consideration,the AO o…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Stovec Industries Ltd, Ahemedabad

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2449/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2812/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Stovec Industries Ltd. Addl.Cit, Range- 2(3) Room No.555, 5Th Floor Nidc, Nr. Lambha Village Post Narol, Ahmedabad Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Gujarat-382 405. Mumbai-20. Pan:Aabcs 7223 D आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2449/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Addl.Cit, Range- 2(3) M/S. Stovec Industries Ltd. Vs. Mumbai-20. Gujarat-382 405. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ravi Sawana सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 29.01.13 Of Cit(A)-6, Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Rotary Screens Etc.Filed Its Return Of Income On 31. 10.2007,Declaring Income Of Rs.5.52 Crores. The Ao Completed The Assessment On 18.12.09 U/S. 143(3)Of The Act,Determining Income Of The Assessee At Rs.8,88,79,430/- .

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…Plate product, that the compensation amount was determined at Rs.2.05 crores,that it had claimed that same was an allowable expenditure,as it had been incurred in the normal course of business.The assessee relied upon the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd.(223 ITR 112).The AO held that the above-mentioned judgment was pronounced in the year 1996 and pertain to the assessment year 1978-79.He referred to the case of TI Diamond Chain Ltd.(274 ITR 59),wherein the compensation paid on termination of a selling agency was held to be a capital expenditure.Referring to the facts of the case under consideration,the AO o…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…) 210 ITR 222 Calcutta (HC) (ii) CIT v. S.R. Ramkrishnan (1969) 74 ITR 761 (Madras) (iii) CIT v. R.G.S. Industries (1990) 183 ITR 31 Gauhati (1990) 51 Taxman 467 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT v. S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) (v) CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Kerala H.C.) (vi) CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Madras).” The assessee submitted that since the compensation was treated as revenue receipts in the hands of recipient , the same should be treated as revenue expenses in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee whereby it…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…) 210 ITR 222 Calcutta (HC) (ii) CIT v. S.R. Ramkrishnan (1969) 74 ITR 761 (Madras) (iii) CIT v. R.G.S. Industries (1990) 183 ITR 31 Gauhati (1990) 51 Taxman 467 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT v. S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) (v) CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Kerala H.C.) (vi) CIT v. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate (1989) 175 ITR 93 (Madras).” The assessee submitted that since the compensation was treated as revenue receipts in the hands of recipient , the same should be treated as revenue expenses in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee whereby it…