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.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…t from these judgments reliance was also placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. HMT Ltd. (203 ITR 820); CIT vs. Gemini Arts P. Ltd. (254 ITR 201); Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited (329 ITR 479); and Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (309 ITR 371). iii) The assessee after referring to the various clauses of the agreement given in the OMDA pointed out that, firstly, the tenure of the agreement was limited to 30 years; secondly, the right acquired from the OMDA were not transferable in favour of any th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…t from these judgments reliance was also placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. HMT Ltd. (203 ITR 820); CIT vs. Gemini Arts P. Ltd. (254 ITR 201); Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited (329 ITR 479); and Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (309 ITR 371). iii) The assessee after referring to the various clauses of the agreement given in the OMDA pointed out that, firstly, the tenure of the agreement was limited to 30 years; secondly, the right acquired from the OMDA were not transferable in favour of any th…

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 253/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2007-08

…vestment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 802, and also the judgment of the 10 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court rendered in the case of DCIT vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. 329 ITR 479. 5.2 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representatives submitted that this issue was before this Hon’ble Tribunal in Appeal of the Assessee pertaining to the year 2010- 11 in ITA No. 124/JP/2014. The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to reject the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the issue of allowability of expenditure is u/s 37(1) of the Act has…

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

…l/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 394 of 484 sq. mtr. In view of the same, the premium paid was in lieu of annual payment of fair market value of rent:  CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd.: 233 ITR 0468 (SC)  DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd.: 329 ITR 479 (Guj)- Revenue‘s SLP Dismissed in SLP No.33784/09 vide order dated 4.12.2009, reported at 325 ITR (st) 6.  CIT v. H. M.T. Ltd. (No. 2): 203 ITR 820 (Kar)  CIT v. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd.: 296 ITR 702 (Mad.)  CIT v. Gemini Arts P. Ltd.: 254 ITR 201 (Mad.) (SLP dismissed)  United Phosphorus Ltd. v. ACIT: [2015] 230 Taxman 596 (Gujarat)  M/s. Lup…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Bunge India P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4336/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Vispi PatelFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)Section 92A

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4336/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT, Circle-8(1) M/s. Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.210, 2nd Floor 601 C & 601 D, 6th Floor, The Capital, C- Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Vs. 70,G-Block, Bandra…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 957 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…es (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6713-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in…

Gail India Ltd

ITA - 956 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…es (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6715-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/957/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…es (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6713-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in…

M/S. Gail India Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/956/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 30Section 37

…es (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Gemini Arts Private Limited (2002) 254 ITR 201. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as Deputy CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals India Limited (2010) 329 ITR 479 and the ruling of the 2012:DHC:6715-DB ITA Nos. 956-957/2011 Page 5 Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HMT Limited 1993 203 ITR 820. It was highlighted that in all these cases almost identical lease hold arrangements have been treated as capital expenditure but Court by application of the Supreme Court’s rulings in…