DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.

308 ITR 263High Court2009#3684 most cited

What is DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure capitalized as tangible/know-how/brand development that is revenue in nature can be claimed as a revenue expense in a revised return, with depreciation claimed thereon being consequently reduced.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. · 308 ITR 263 · revenue expenditure · capitalized expenses · brand development · revised return · depreciation

Sections most often in play

Section 80-IAB

Judgments citing DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.

ROSEBYS INTERIORS INDIA LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 204/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…53 & 204/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 17 DCIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. & Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. vs. ACIT judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DC/7 vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263 (Gui.) guirat high court has discussed the issue in detail as under "The assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. The Tribunal held that making of accounting entries in the books of account was not determinative of the character and/or nature of the claim. That the expenditure in question did not bring into…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ROSEBYS INTERIORS INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 153/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…53 & 204/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 17 DCIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. & Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. vs. ACIT judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DC/7 vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263 (Gui.) guirat high court has discussed the issue in detail as under "The assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. The Tribunal held that making of accounting entries in the books of account was not determinative of the character and/or nature of the claim. That the expenditure in question did not bring into…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ROSEBYS INTERIORS INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1047/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…C), CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263 (Guf.) gujrat high court has discussed the issue in detail as under I.T.A. No. 1047/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. 6 ACIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. "The assesses carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. The Tribunal held that making of accounting entries in the books of account was not determinative of…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GLOBUS SPIRITS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…rporation Ltd., 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 315 ITR 150 (AT) (Del.) (VII) CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 308 ITR 263 (Guj.) 4.3 On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that though during the year the assessee had capitalized a sum of Rs.1,79,77,181/- under the head tangible / know-how and brand development in the books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing that the expenses so capitalized are of Revenue in nature, the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS SPIRITS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…rporation Ltd., 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 315 ITR 150 (AT) (Del.) (VII) CIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 308 ITR 263 (Guj.) 4.3 On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that though during the year the assessee had capitalized a sum of Rs.1,79,77,181/- under the head tangible / know-how and brand development in the books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing that the expenses so capitalized are of Revenue in nature, the…

HIKE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4314/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4313/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4314/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 28Section 30Section 32

…sessee further placed reliance on the following case laws where Revenue has tried to treat the advertisement expenses as brand building expenses of enduring nature and the courts have duly set aside such proposition :- (i) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263; (ii) Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. 195 taxman 256 (Del.); (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd – 372 ITR 605 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal) (v) Polygel Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 198 10. In view of the aforegoing decisions and precedents, it is clear that assessee cannot be disallowed the expend…

HIKE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4313/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4313/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4314/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

Section 28Section 30Section 32

…sessee further placed reliance on the following case laws where Revenue has tried to treat the advertisement expenses as brand building expenses of enduring nature and the courts have duly set aside such proposition :- (i) DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263; (ii) Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. 195 taxman 256 (Del.); (iii) Taparia Tools Ltd – 372 ITR 605 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal) (v) Polygel Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 198 10. In view of the aforegoing decisions and precedents, it is clear that assessee cannot be disallowed the expend…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPTNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED , VISAKHAPTNAM

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Of Income Tax India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Hb Colony, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.54/Viz/2021) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] निर्धारितऩ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115VSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Dredge House, HB Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [PAN : AAACD6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्…

DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Of Income Tax India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Hb Colony, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.54/Viz/2021) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] निर्धारितऩ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115VSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Dredge House, HB Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [PAN : AAACD6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्…

MAHINDRA HOMES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG- 7 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J” :MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.7159/Mum./2018 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Mahindra Homes Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 5th Floor, Ward-7(2)(1), Room No. Mahndra Towers, Worli, vs. 32-1, Ground Floor, Mumbai – 400 018. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. PAN AAACW9691A Road, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ranjan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 ORDER PER ANIK…

M/S B.B. VERMA,KORBA(CG) vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-I, BILASPUR(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 324/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. B.B. Verma Hig-9, C1, C2, Near Niharika Talkies, Korba (C.G) Pan : Aqlps2396C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri G.S. Agarwal, Ar Revenue By :Shri Shravankumar Meena, Dr

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shravankumar Meena, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed by it for acquiring machinery in the course of its existing line of business was allowable as a deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Guj.). On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the assessee would be entitled for deduction of interest paid/payable on 16 M/s. B.B. Verma Vs. JCIT ITA No.324 /RPR/2016 the interest-bearing funds borrowed from financial institutions, i.e, to the extent such interest expenditure had crystallized during the…

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…CIT v. Casio India Ltd.: 335 ITR 196 (Del.) ix. CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble…

MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1070/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subha Kant Sahu, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

…is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.” 18. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case cited as DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat) has held that, “even brand promotion expenses are revenue in nature, 14 ITA No.1051/Del./2016 ITA No.1070/Del./2016 hence deductible u/s 37 (1) of the Act because such expenditure do not create any intangible interest and merely because of the fact that expenditure may bring some benefit of enduring nature to the assessee, that factor…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MOET HENNESSY (I) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1051/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subha Kant Sahu, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 37(1)

…is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.” 18. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case cited as DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat) has held that, “even brand promotion expenses are revenue in nature, 14 ITA No.1051/Del./2016 ITA No.1070/Del./2016 hence deductible u/s 37 (1) of the Act because such expenditure do not create any intangible interest and merely because of the fact that expenditure may bring some benefit of enduring nature to the assessee, that factor…

ARIES AGRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11) Aries Agro Ltd Vs. Dcit-14(1)(1) Plot No. 24, Aries House 460, Aaykar Bhawan Deonar, Govandi M.K.Road Mumbai-400 043 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaca5035G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…on 31.03.2008: i. ICICI Bank Bahrain Rs. 14,66,19,200/- ii. India Overseas Bank-Cash credit/Overdraft Rs.66,12,961/- iii. HDFC Bank-Cash credit/Overdraft Rs. 57,43,163/- The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Guj) has held that all borrowings from banks are included in the expression ‘long term borrowings’ without any reference to the tenure of the bank loans. The borrowings from ICICI Bank Bahrain is, therefore, being included for computing capital employed. However, the outstanding against Indian Overseas Bank and HDFC Bank are in the nature of cas…

M/S. MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

ITA 5004/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 250Section 40A

…is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.” 18. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case cited as DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat) has held that, “even brand promotion expenses are revenue in nature, hence deductible u/s 37 (1) of the Act because such expenditure do not create any intangible interest and merely because of the fact that as capital expenditure. So, the advertisement expenses even to create the brand image is allowable as a revenue expenditure.” 19…

MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

ITA 5003/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 250Section 40A

…is, therefore, not a certain or conclusive test and it cannot be applied blindly and mechanically without regard to the particular facts and circumstances of a given case.” 18. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case cited as DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2009) 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat) has held that, “even brand promotion expenses are revenue in nature, hence deductible u/s 37 (1) of the Act because such expenditure do not create any intangible interest and merely because of the fact that as capital expenditure. So, the advertisement expenses even to create the brand image is allowable as a revenue expenditure.” 19…

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,., VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 464/VIZ/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.437/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/S Dredging Corporation Vs. Dcit Of India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.464/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Acit Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Circle-3(1) Of India Ltd. Visakhapatnam Dredge House, Port Area Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 115VSection 5

…ome from the above receipts forms part of the income from the core activity of operating the qualifying ships. For ready reference, we reproduce Para No.9 of the ITAT’s order supra which reads as under: 9. In the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 263 (Guj.), the question whether the income generated from the sale of empty containers can be treated as income derived from industrial undertakings was raised before the High Court. The question was answered in affirmative and for the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant head note: "Held that it was an accepted position that the empty…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (308 ITR 263) — Cited in 32 Judgments | BharatTax