Commissioner of Income Tax v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.

268 ITR 305High Court#3961 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. authority for?

A bank guarantee does not satisfy a statutory liability to pay duty to the government if actual payment is required by law. Money must actually flow to the government.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2021.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. · 268 ITR 305 · statutory liability · bank guarantee · actual payment · duty payment · Rajasthan High Court

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd.

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik vs. Vasantrao Dada Patil Ssk Ltd., Nashik

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 952/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

…to show that the assessee is under obligation to pay Government Guarantee Fee on account of statutory requirement as „revenue‟ to the State. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. reported as 268 ITR 305 has held that „tax‟, „duty‟, „cess‟ or „fee‟ constituting a class, denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. “The Hon‟ble High Court further cl…

Income-Tax, Officer vs. M/S. Neera Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1908/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

…to show that the assessee is under obligation to pay Government Guarantee Fee on account of statutory requirement as „revenue‟ to the State. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. reported as 268 ITR 305 has held that „tax‟, „duty‟, „cess‟ or „fee‟ constituting a class, denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. “The Hon‟ble High Court further cl…

M/S. Nira Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1871/PUN/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

…to show that the assessee is under obligation to pay Government Guarantee Fee on account of statutory requirement as „revenue‟ to the State. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. reported as 268 ITR 305 has held that „tax‟, „duty‟, „cess‟ or „fee‟ constituting a class, denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. “The Hon‟ble High Court further cl…

Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Nanded vs. Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nanded

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1017/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

…to show that the assessee is under obligation to pay Government Guarantee Fee on account of statutory requirement as „revenue‟ to the State. The Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. reported as 268 ITR 305 has held that „tax‟, „duty‟, „cess‟ or „fee‟ constituting a class, denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. “The Hon‟ble High Court further cl…

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

…(Ker.)  CIT v. Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.: 198 ITR 535 (Cal.)  CIT v. Madras Spinners Ltd.: 207 ITR 35 (Ker.)  CIT v. Sree Bhagvathi Textiles Ltd.: 207 ITR 826 (Ker.)  CIT v. Co-operative Sugars Limited: 235 ITR 343 (Ker.)  CIT v. Udaipur Distillary Co. Ltd.: 268 ITR 451 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Prabhu Spg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 113 TTJ 372 (ITAT) (Chennai)  ACIT v. Shiva Texyarn Ltd.: ITA No. 2231/Mds/2014 (Chennai)  Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. v. DCIT: 150 ITD 502 (Mum)  M/s Singh Fab P Ltd Vs ITO : ITA No. 5314/Del/2004, (Trib) (Del) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is respectfully submitted th…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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) Assessee by Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue by Shri V. Justin Date of Hearing 03/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 08/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 53, Mumbai dated 20/10/2015 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. Following…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income 302, Shabnam Apartment, 33, Tax, Central Circle-36, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai-58 Pan No.Aafs0638J .. Appellant Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. Piyush Chhajed, Ar .. Revenue By Miss. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 24-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 24-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 30

…t. Therefore, it would be treated as replacement of those parts when they are not used independently and the expenditure would be liable to deduction under Section 37(1). Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 268 ITR 451(Guj), wherein it was held that purchase of transformers in replacement of existing transformer, which could not be used independently, falls within the category of revenue expenditure and hence, is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. These expenditures are, thus, treated as Revenue expenditure. 5. We find that in the present ca…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…Mills: 294 ITR 328 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sagar Talkies Ltd.: 325 ITR 133 (Kar) (iv) CIT vs Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.: 211 Taxmann 534 (SC) (v) CIT vs. Co-operative Sugars Ltd. 235 ITR 343 (Ker.) (vi) CIT vs. Udaipur Distillary Co. Ltd. (No. 3) 268 ITR 451 (Raj.) (vii) B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 171 CTR 266 (Gau.) (viii) DCIT v. Modi Rubber: ITA 686/Del/2005 (Del ITAT) (ix) Southern Coalfields Ltd. 85 ITD 608 (Nagpur - ITAT) (x) CIT vs Prabhu Spg. Mills (P) Ltd.: 113 TTJ 372 (ITAT - Chennai) He further submitted that The entire expenses claimed by the appellant were in the natu…

M/S Bla Coke Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, --IV, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Sachidananda Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…overhauling. Such overhauling and repairs expenses are revenue expenditures .CIT v Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd 157 ITR 584,Addl CIT v Dyer's Stone Lime Co (P) Ltd 136 ITR 8, CIT v Bharat Aluminium ce Limited 292 ITR 600, CIT v Udaipur Distillary Co Limited 268 ITR 451. It was further pointed out that in the course of the assessment the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of expenses for the purpose of dismantling ovens vide its notice dated 22.08.2011 and the Assessee furnished full details of the said expenses vide its Letter dated 13.09.2011and after examining the nature of the expenses the AO allow…

Commisioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd

ITA-161/2006HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

…ned in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – V Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. [(2009) 183 Taxman 212(Delhi)]. He also referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. (No.3) [268 ITR 451]. 9. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the both the sides. On reading the order of the Tribunal, it becomes evident that on two grounds, viz., the depreciation is allowed viz., 1) There was a passive user of the assets at Bhopal Unit, which will be treated as “used for the purpose of business.” 2) As it…