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

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 671/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr CounselFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-I
Section 154Section 92C(2)

…hikari Brothers Television Networks Ltd., in ITA No.142 of 2013 dated 17-01-2013. He submitted a copy of this judgment. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co., Vs CIT as reported in 84 ITR 277(SC). 11. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities blow. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we reproduce para-13, 13.1, 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 from the order of ld. CIT(A) on pages-26 to 29 of his order. These paras are as under; “13. Grounds 3.1. to 3.3 on the other hand, deal with the issue regard…

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

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 1084/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3669/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3668/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3667/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 3666/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

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

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 4680/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

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

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 367/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

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

In the result all the appeals of the assessee for all these

ITA 1561/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1561/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08)

Section 37

…her 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 royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions; because (i) though clause 2 o…

Indiawin Sports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 5290/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5290&5291/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2010-2011) Indianwin Sports Private Vs. Acit, Cc-35, Room Limited, Court House, 3Rd No.104, Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai-400020 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai- 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 8195 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.C.S.Naik सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. In Both These Appeals The Assessee Is Aggrieved For Decline Of Annual Payment Being Franchise Fees Paid To Bcci To Participate In The Indian Premier League (Ipl) By Holding The Same As Capital In Nature For Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Owning, Managing & Operating 'Mumbai Indian' Team Of Indian Premier League (Ipl). The Assessee Has Been Granted Perpetual Franchisee For The 'Mumbai Indian' Team. The Assessee Is Franchise Holder Of Ipl I.E. Indian

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S.Naik
Section 139Section 143(3)

…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 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…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…d. v. 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 Sugars & Chemic…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263

…High Court in the case of Tata Services Ltd., 122 ITR 594, wherein it was held that right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is capital asset. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co., 84 ITR 277, wherein goodwill of a business was held as capital asset. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K.Palshikar, HUF, 172 ITR 311, wherein it was held that contractual right, leasehold rights are capital asset. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cas…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Venkateswarlu AND others

ITTA/137/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax Rajahmundry vs. M/S K.Srinivasa Rao and Others

ITTA/131/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN