Dy. CIT v. Assam Asbestos Ltd.

JSW ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical\npurposes

…. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of\nthe Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case Tamilnadu Magesite Ltd.\n(supra) and decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the\ncase of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Assam Asbestos Ltd.\n(2003) 263 ITR 357 wherein it is held that such expenses are\nrevenue in nature. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the finding\nof the Ld. DRP and submitted that expenses incurred on feasibility\nreports are governed by the specific provision u/s 35D of the Act\nand therefore, not eligible u/s 37 of the Act which explicitly express\nthat expenses must be wholly…

JSW ENERGY (BARMER) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…in the case Tamilnadu Magesite Ltd. (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Assam Asbestos Ltd. Assam Asbestos Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 357 wherein it is held that such expenses are (2003) 263 ITR 357 wherein it is held that such ex (2003) 263 ITR 357 wherein it is held that such ex revenue in nature. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the finding revenue in nature. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the finding revenue in nature. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the findi…

MAHANAGAR GAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

…mes into existence, which is of enduring benefit, then such expenditure would be capital in nature. 29. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court took note of the decision of the Gauhati High Court in DCIT vs. Assam Asbestos Ltd. reported in (2003) 185 CTR (Gau.) : (2003) 263 ITR 357 (Gau.). The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Binani Cement Ltd. (supra), considered a case where the Tribunal disallowed the expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee for preparing feasibility study report and capital work-in- since the proposed project was abandoned. The Court affirmed the view taken by the CIT(A), where it was held th…

MAHANAGAR GAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

…mes into existence, which is of enduring benefit, then such expenditure would be capital in nature. 29. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court took note of the decision of the Gauhati High Court in DCIT vs. Assam Asbestos Ltd. reported in (2003) 185 CTR (Gau.) : (2003) 263 ITR 357 (Gau.). The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Binani Cement Ltd. (supra), considered a case where the Tribunal disallowed the expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee for preparing feasibility study report and capital work-in- since the proposed project was abandoned. The Court affirmed the view taken by the CIT(A), where it was held th…

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company PCIT-1 Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue by: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/03/2022…

ADITYA BIRLA POWER CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1115/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Assistant Commissioner Of C-1, Aditya Birla Centre Income Tax -8(1) बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcb-7067-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

…ture. However, if the new asset comes into existence, which is of enduring benefit, then such expenditure would be capital in nature. 29. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court took note of the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Dy. CIT v. Assam Asbestos Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 357/132 Taxman 808. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Binani Cement Ltd. (supra), considered a case where the Tribunal disallowed the expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee for preparing feasibility study report and capital work-in-progress in the earlier years but written off during the previous year, since the proposed project was a…

J.P. MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Morgan Services Ito Rg 8(2)(2) India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 707A, C-10 7Th Floor, 9Th Floor, B Wing, Prism Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Towers Mindspace, Bandra (E) Malad (W) Mumbai-51 Mumba-40004 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito Rg 8(2)(2) J.P. Morgan Services India P. 707A, C-10 7Th Ltd. बनाम/ Floor, Bandra 9Th Floor, B Wing, Prism Towers Vs. Kurla Complex Mindspace, Malad (W) Bandra (E) Mumba-40004 Mumbai-51. (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcd0503B

…ially where it is incurred in connection with an existing business, constitutes ‘revenue’ expenditure. Ld. Counsel, placing reliance on various decisions in his favour, drew our attention on the propositions held in the decisions of DCIT vs Assam Asbestos Ltd 263 ITR 357, ITO vs Jacob Pacadiyil 43 ITD 459, Usha Alloys and Steels Ltd vs DClT 55 ITD 418 and Kesoram lndsutreis and Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT 196 ITR 845. It was submitted that in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs CIT, 124 ITR 1, the Supreme Court held that there might be cases where expenditure even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, would…