DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd.

329 ITR 479High Court2010#2337 most cited

What is DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd. authority for?

Amortization claimed on capitalized leasehold land, which is reported as an asset in the balance sheet, is an allowable deduction for income-tax purposes.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd · 329 ITR 479 · Gujarat High Court · leasehold land · capitalized leasehold land · amortization · allowability of amortization · deduction · Section 31 · enduring benefit · asset treatment

Sections most often in play

Section 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 80HHCSection 35(2AB)Section 28(iiid)Section 35Section 45Section 54EC

Issues it is cited on

legal expensessection 10(15)section 35dannual valueenduring benefitsection 14a(2)computer softwarewritten down valueblock of assetsinfrastructure facilitysection 31colourable device

Judgments citing DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd.

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2013[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2010-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…ease for taking the land and building on lease for the period of 20 years for the purpose of setting up new unit was a revenue expenditure. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd, 329 ITR 479 (Guj), wherein also, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the lumpsum lease rent paid is a revenue expenditure. It was the prayer that the assessee may be granted the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. In reply, ld CIT DR drew our attention to the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, while adjudicating the issue, the ld CIT(A) has categorically…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. JCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 325/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…ease for taking the land and building on lease for the period of 20 years for the purpose of setting up new unit was a revenue expenditure. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd, 329 ITR 479 (Guj), wherein also, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the lumpsum lease rent paid is a revenue expenditure. It was the prayer that the assessee may be granted the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. In reply, ld CIT DR drew our attention to the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, while adjudicating the issue, the ld CIT(A) has categorically…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 73/CTK/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…ease for taking the land and building on lease for the period of 20 years for the purpose of setting up new unit was a revenue expenditure. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd, 329 ITR 479 (Guj), wherein also, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the lumpsum lease rent paid is a revenue expenditure. It was the prayer that the assessee may be granted the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. In reply, ld CIT DR drew our attention to the order of the ld CIT(A), wherein, while adjudicating the issue, the ld CIT(A) has categorically…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5680/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…ernment of Gujarat for its development of Wind Farm and installation of wind turbine generators. 43. In support of its claim, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 329 ITR 479. 44. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A), following the earlier years findings, allowed the claim of deduction. 45. The ld. DR strongly contended that this claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) and without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance. 46.…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5679/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…ernment of Gujarat for its development of Wind Farm and installation of wind turbine generators. 43. In support of its claim, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 329 ITR 479. 44. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A), following the earlier years findings, allowed the claim of deduction. 45. The ld. DR strongly contended that this claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) and without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance. 46.…

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5011/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…ernment of Gujarat for its development of Wind Farm and installation of wind turbine generators. 43. In support of its claim, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 329 ITR 479. 44. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A), following the earlier years findings, allowed the claim of deduction. 45. The ld. DR strongly contended that this claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) and without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance. 46.…

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5010/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Atra Tara Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT- DR
Section 22

…ernment of Gujarat for its development of Wind Farm and installation of wind turbine generators. 43. In support of its claim, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 329 ITR 479. 44. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A), following the earlier years findings, allowed the claim of deduction. 45. The ld. DR strongly contended that this claim was made for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) and without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance. 46.…

Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-8, Ahmedabad

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…arned CIT (A) erred in not following the direction issued by the ITAT to decide the question of lease payment after considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT versus Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd reported in 329 ITR 479. ITA nos.1577/AHD/2015 with 8 others Asstt. Years 2006-07 & others 5 4. It is the 2nd round of litigation before us. Therefore, we find pertinent to take a note about the history of the case in brief which goes like this. There were certain pieces of lands which were acquired on lease for a period of 99 years by Torrent Power AEC and Torrent Pow…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITR 652 (Bom)]. (ii) Richardson Hindustan ltd. Vs. CIT- [(1988) 169 ITR 516 (Bom)] (iii) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services P. Ltd.- [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. H.M.T. LTd. – [(1993) 203 ITR 820 (Karn)] (v) DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. – [(2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj)] (vi) ACIT Vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd.- [(2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Del)] (vii) CIT Vs. Hari Vignesh Motors P. Ltd. [(2006) 282 ITR 338 (Madras)].‖ Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid stamp duty expenses incurred by the assessee should be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure. In support of his…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

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

ITA 174/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Podar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 35ESection 37Section 37(1)

…amount paid to acquire network and the facilities was held to be Intangible Asset. A photocopy of the judgment is enclosed at Page No.161-169 of the P/B-VOl-I1. 2.13.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 479 held that- "By obtaining the land on lease the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change. The assessee only acquired a facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent. In light of the aforesaid findings of fact there is no warrant for interference. Even the AO has recorded that the payment was for use of…

M/S. Multitude Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2722/Del/2017 (A.Y 2012-13) M/S. Multitude Infrastructure Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Ece House, Income Tax, 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Circle – 17(1) New Delhi – 110 001. New Delhi (Pan : Aafcm 5511 L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Bansal, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 11.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2019

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…of Income Tax 124 ITR 1(SC) b) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. 172 ITR 257(SC) c) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gemini Arts (P.) Ltd. 254 ITR 201 (Madras) d) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Pharmaceutical India Ltd. 329 ITR 479 e) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [233 ITR 468 (SC)] f) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. H.M.T. Ltd. 203 ITR 820 4 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature and which should have been capitalized by the assessee. The…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…30 years can be reckoned as revenue or not, appears to be quite settled proposition in wake of the following judgements which has been highlighted and stressed upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee before us:- i. DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. - 329 ITR 479 (Guj HC) - In this case, the assessee was the lessee of land. The period of lease was 99 years. In addition to an annual lease rent of Rs.40 per annum, the assessee paid Rs.48 lakh to GIDC as advance rent. The AO disallowed the claim for the reason that the assessee obtained an enduring benefit for a period of 99 years in the form of use of the l…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…30 years can be reckoned as revenue or not, appears to be quite settled proposition in wake of the following judgements which has been highlighted and stressed upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee before us:- i. DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. - 329 ITR 479 (Guj HC) - In this case, the assessee was the lessee of land. The period of lease was 99 years. In addition to an annual lease rent of Rs.40 per annum, the assessee paid Rs.48 lakh to GIDC as advance rent. The AO disallowed the claim for the reason that the assessee obtained an enduring benefit for a period of 99 years in the form of use of the l…

M/S. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2687/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.1738/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) & M/s. National Stock Vs. Addl. CIT, Rg. 7(1) Exchange of India Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan C-1, Block-G, Mumbai – 400 020 Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACN1797L .. (Respondent) Addl. CIT, Rg. 7(1) Vs. M/s. National Stock Exchange of Aaykar Bhavan India Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 C-1, Block-G, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAACN1797L .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Per…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5600/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…. He submitted, the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of amortization of upfront payment made towards lease hold land is an allowable deduction. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) DCIT v/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2010] 329 ITR 479 (Guj.); and ii) ACIT v/s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 326 (Del.). 11. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue. Thus, he submitted, t…

Torrent Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1562/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR
Section 32(1)

…rent should be allowed as Torrent Energy Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 deduction as revenue expenses. The learned AR in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of sun pharmaceutical industries Ltd reported in 329 ITR 479. The learned AR also claimed that the impugned payment represents the premium paid to acquire the right, thus the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under section 194-I of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the assessee has not furnished any details before the AO regarding such payment of premium on the lease land. Th…

Shell India Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4746/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Shell India Markets Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, 401-403, Of Income-Tax, Large Vs. 4Th Floor, Hiranandani Taxpayers Unit, 29Th Business Park, Powai, Floor, Centre No. 1, Mumbai-400076. World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaics1404P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…se law relied upon by the department is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd (2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court under similar circumstances held that when assessee acquired land on lease by paying monthly lease rent, even if such lease rent has been paid in advance, the same can be allowable as revenue expenditure and could not be treated as capital expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the ratio l…

Vikas Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2332/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…s lease hold on which building was constructed. Therefore, the depreciation pertains to the building only and not to the land. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj.). 12. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR reiterated the observations made by the authorities below and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that a similar issue has been decided by the…

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad vs. United States Pharmacopeia India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the C

ITA 1582/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 92C

…j’s case in the present case as the same is not similar. However, the AR had relied on the various decisions which are presented before the CIT(A). These cases are similar to the present case in particular, the case of DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. (329 ITR 479 (Guj.) are similar to the assessee’s case. It was held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, dismissing the revenue appeal, that the tribunal had found that the land in question was not acquired by the assessee. Merely, because the deed was registered, the transaction in question would not assume a different character. The lease rent was very nomina…

Shell India Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed, for

ITA 1743/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…se law relied upon by the department is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd (2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court under similar circumstances held that when assessee acquired land on lease by paying monthly lease rent, even if such lease rent has been paid in advance, the same can be allowable as revenue expenditure and could not be treated as capital expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the ratio…