Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, Bombay

84 ITR 277Supreme Court of India1972#3494 most cited

What is Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, Bombay authority for?

The terms 'enduring benefit' and 'rights of permanent nature' in relation to expenditure are descriptive, not definitive, and are relative, not absolute. Therefore, the presence of such terms does not automatically render an expenditure capital in nature.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT · 84 ITR 277 · enduring benefit · permanent nature · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · business expenditure · nature of expenditure · nature of business · nature of right acquired

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37section 37(1)transfercompanyindiabusinessdocumenttotal income

Judgments citing Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, Bombay

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1995/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…that Capital expenditure would not become revenue expenditure simply by reasons that it was incurred in connection with business activities which ultimately resulted in efficiently carrying on day-to-day business. In the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs CIT 84 ITR 277 (SC) it has been held that the expression 'enduring benefit' and rights of permanent nature are only descriptive and not definite Page No. 24 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and are relative in meaning not synonymous with 'perpetual' or 'everlasting'. In the case of K.T.M.T.M. Abdu…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/MUM/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 80I

…that Capital expenditure would not become revenue expenditure simply by reasons that it was incurred in connection with business activities which ultimately resulted in efficiently carrying on day-to-day business. In the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs CIT 84 ITR 277 (SC) it has been held that the expression 'enduring benefit' and rights of permanent nature are only descriptive and not definite Page No. 24 ITA NOs. 1994 & 1995/MUM/2023 CO NOs. 109 & 110/MUM/2023 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and are relative in meaning not synonymous with 'perpetual' or 'everlasting'. In the case of K.T.M.T.M. Abdu…

ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2570/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2570/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Remfry & Sagar, Circle-61(1), 8, Raya Business Centre, Nangal New Delhi Raya, New Delhi-110046 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefr6753P Assessee By : Sh. Kvsr Krishna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.11.2022

For Appellant: Sh. KVSR Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 2570/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Remfry & Sagar, Circle-61(1), 8, Raya Business Centre, Nangal New Delhi Raya, New Delhi-110046 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEFR6753P Assessee by : Sh. KVSR Krishna, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 30.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-35, New Del…

Hitachi Metglas (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) · • Arvind Mills Ltd v. CIT: 97 ITR 422 (SC) 51 • ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 · • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) · • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) · DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) · • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) · • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) · • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) · • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) · Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) · • M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 86 ITR 38 (SC) · • Travancore Sug…

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon

ITA 4955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kothari, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.4955/Del./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) ACIT, Circle 61 (1), vs. M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi. Remfry House at Millenium Plaza, Sector – 27, Gurgaon – 122 002. (PAN : AAEFR6753P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri KVSR Krishna, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Dilip Kothari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.09.2021 Date of Order : 22.09.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, ACIT, Circle 61…

ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi vs. Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon

ITA 6699/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

…ther such the amounts paid to the wife and thereof to the son is allowable deduction or not under the Income tax Act. 8.14. The Larger Bench consisting of four Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs. CIT, Bombay, reported in 84 ITR 277 (S.C.), held as follows. "Held, by Shelat, Khanna and Mitter JJ (SDhri CJ dissenting), reversing the decision of the High Court, that the transaction under the deed of dissolution was a licence and not a sale of the goodwill and the payments were in the nature of royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2…

M/S. Harsha Engineers Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1735/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2013-14 Harsha Engineers Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Sarkhej Bavla Road Vs. Changodar Ahmedabad 382 213. Pan : Aaach 4828 C

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…nent to mention that during the course of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon following the judgments, viz. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 3 11 taxmann 69 (SC); CIT Vs. Coal Shipments P.Ltd., 82 ITR 902 (SC) and Devidas Vithaldas & Co Vs. CIT, 84 ITR 277 (SC) and contended that every expenditure which has resulted into some of sort of enduring benefit cannot be straight away treated as expenditure, which is capital in nature. 12. Apart from the above, the assessee has demonstrated that it has not created any specified head of R&D expenditure in the P&L account. It has demarcated all these expendi…

DCIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…n of capital asset and therefore, its purchase price would be capital expenditure. Where, however, the transaction is not one for acquisition of goodwill, but for the right to use it, the expenditure would be revenue expenditure pevidas Vithaldas & Co v. CIT. 84 ITR 277 (SC)]. 5.3.5 From the above legal pronouncements, it is clear that the character of the payment would depend on nature of rights acquired and the period for which such rights was acquired by the appellant. Any payment made for obtaining a commercial right would be a capital expenditure. But payment made periodically for exploiting such rights is r…

DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai vs. Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…of capital asset and therefore, its purchase price would be capital expenditure. Where, however, the transaction is not one for acquisition of goodwill, but for the right to use it, the expenditure would be revenue expenditure [Devidas Vithaldas & Co v. CIT, 84 ITR 277 (SC)]. 5.3.5 From the above legal pronouncements, it is c.le.nr that the character of the payment would depend on nature of rights acquired and f $ie period for which such rights was acquired by the appellant. Any made for obtaining a commercial right would be a capital expenditure. But payment made periodically for exploiting such rights is reven…

Indiawin Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…of capital asset and therefore, its purchase price would be capital expenditure. Where, however, the transaction is not one for acquisition of goodwill, but for the right to use it, the expenditure would be revenue expenditure [Devidas Vithaldas & Co v. CIT, 84 ITR 277 (SC)]. 5.3.5 From the above legal pronouncements, it is c.le.nr that the character of the payment would depend on nature of rights acquired and f $ie period for which such rights was acquired by the appellant. Any made for obtaining a commercial right would be a capital expenditure. But payment made periodically for exploiting such rights is reven…

M/S Universal Infrastructure, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir -8, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 295/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2012 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Universal Infrastructure, C/O. Devarshi Security, J.P Chambers, 2Nd Floor, A-Wing, Opp. Shradanand Peth Anathalaya, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur-440 022. Pan : Aabfu2671E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Nagpur. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Agnesh P. Thomas

…is the contention of the assessee that the entire payment of Rs.45 Lakhs should be allowed as ‘revenue expenditure’ by placing reliance on the decision of the A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 277 (SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) while going through the retirement deed of the partner and other relevant documents as evident in his order observed that it is a case of a partner retiring from partnership and the retiring partner is paid for his capital and the entire goodwill at the time of retirement after due valuation mutually agreed and retir…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5440/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 199

…ther such the amounts paid to the wife and thereof to the son is allowable deduction or not under the Income tax Act. 8.14. The Larger Bench consisting of four Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs. CIT, Bombay, reported in 84 ITR 277 (S.C.), held as follows. “Held, by Shelat, Khanna andMitter JJ (SDhri CJ dissenting), reversing the decision of the High Court, that the transaction under the deed of dissolution was a licence and not a sale of the goodwill and the payments were in the nature of 9 I.T.A. No.2979 & 5440/DEL/2016 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductio…

Remfry & Sagar, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2979/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 199

…ther such the amounts paid to the wife and thereof to the son is allowable deduction or not under the Income tax Act. 8.14. The Larger Bench consisting of four Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs. CIT, Bombay, reported in 84 ITR 277 (S.C.), held as follows. “Held, by Shelat, Khanna andMitter JJ (SDhri CJ dissenting), reversing the decision of the High Court, that the transaction under the deed of dissolution was a licence and not a sale of the goodwill and the payments were in the nature of 9 I.T.A. No.2979 & 5440/DEL/2016 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductio…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4897/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit(Cir)-6(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., 264-265, Vaswani Chambers, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aabcd 1147 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.Ar Cit Assessee By Shri P.J.Pardiwala,Ar Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar & Shri Ninad Patade, Ar Date Of Hearing 11/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2019

Section 143(3)

…lizing it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount paid by the assessee is a capital expenditure incurred for acquiring a brand for goodwill. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) DCIT, v/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd., [1972] 84 ITR 277 (SC); and ii) Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2008] 19 SOT 363 (Cochin) 22. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. It is observed that the assessee has been paying the DTT subscription annually for utilizing the Deloitte brand along with certain technology. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee has a…

Systems America (India) Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…liance was placed on the following case laws:- i. CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 86 ITR 549, (SC) ii. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. V. CIT, 177 ITR 377, (SC) iii. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 62 ITR 566, (SC) iv. Devidas Vithaldas & Co. vs. CIT, 84 ITR 277, (SC) v. R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT, 86 ITR 647, (SC) vi. Shree Sita Ram Paper Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT, 6 SOT 585 (Del) vii. Nimbus Communications Ltd. vs. ACIT 132 TTJ 351 (Bom) 28. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made therein. 29. We h…

ACIT, Circle-7(1) vs. System America India Ltd

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

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…liance was placed on the following case laws:- i. CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 86 ITR 549, (SC) ii. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. V. CIT, 177 ITR 377, (SC) iii. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 62 ITR 566, (SC) iv. Devidas Vithaldas & Co. vs. CIT, 84 ITR 277, (SC) v. R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. CIT, 86 ITR 647, (SC) vi. Shree Sita Ram Paper Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT, 6 SOT 585 (Del) vii. Nimbus Communications Ltd. vs. ACIT 132 TTJ 351 (Bom) 28. In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made therein. 29. We h…

DCIT Cen Cir 23 Cen RG -7, Mumbai vs. Thakur Estate Development P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3184/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-23 M/S Thakur Estate Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ashok Nagar, Churchgate, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400101 Pan No. Aaact5599A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rajan.R. Vora, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

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

…pon the meaning and content of the language used therein, and this must be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of construction as held in CIT v. Motors General & Stores (P.) Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 692, 699 (SC); Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, (1972) 84 ITR 277, 284 (SC); CIT v. Puran Das Ranchoddas & Sons, (1988) 169 ITR 480, 488 (AP). M/s Thakur Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 12 To recapitulate the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the payment of damage for breach of contract as in the instant case is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. We hold so. 7.4 But what should be the amount of compe…

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.5 & 6 of the appeal are dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran,Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(3)(1), M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Aayakar Bhavan, Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.),Now Mumbai-400020. Vs. Merged With Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Dcit 3(3)(1), Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.),Now Merged With Travel Mumbai-400020. Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni Vs. House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT –DR with & with Ms Pooja Swaroop ( Sr
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 8O

…assessee and to make available to the assessee any improvements, modifications and additions to designs. It had also undertaken to enable the assessee to defend any counterfeit by others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. Vs. CIT (84 ITR 277) held that where expenditure is for acquisition of goodwill, expenditure is capital in nature, however, where expenditure is not for acquisition of goodwill but to use it, expenditure would be allowable as revenue expenditure. The decision relied by ld. DR in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. (supra) has been ITA No.1924 & 2075/M/2007- K…

Commissioner of IncomeTax-2 vs. Mr. Mustafa Alam Khan

ITTA/72/2017HC Telangana29 Jun 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela vs. M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 457/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…s revenue expenditure. Support is derived from the decision in the case of CIT v. South India Exports Co. Ltd. (2000) 242 IT 150(MAD.) / [2003] 127 TAXMAN 478 (MAD.). Support is also taken from the decision in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & C v. CIT, [1972] 84 ITR 277 (SC), which has been rendered under similar situatior which the appellant has referred to in its favour. In that case it has been held a under: "Acquisition of the goodwill of' the business is, without doubt, acquisition of, capital asset, and, therefore, its purchase price would be capital expenditure It would not make any difference whether it…

Devidas Vithaldas & Co. v. CIT, Bombay (84 ITR 277) — Cited in 34 Judgments | BharatTax