Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

124 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1980#95 most cited

What is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

622

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · Section 37 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · test of enduring benefit not conclusive · business necessity · commercial expediency · practical business point of view · facilitation of trading operations · business efficiency

Also reported as

3 Taxmann 69

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 37Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 234ASection 234BSection 115P

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitenduring benefitrevenue expenditurecapital expenditurecomputer softwaresection 35commercial expediencysection 37section 37(1)section 80isection 40(a)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsolarfield Energy Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Limited, Hinduja House, Room No. 344, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 171, Dr. Annie Besent Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan – Aaocs4380A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ure incurred by the assessee had not resulted in any enduring benefit to the assessee company, therefore, the same could not have been considered as capital in nature. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC), the advantage acquired by an assessee must be viewed from a commercial standpoint and if the same is in revenue field, the same constitutes a revenue expenditure. As observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee‟s trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee‟s bu…

Kapoor Watch Company Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Cirlce-75(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 889/Del/2020 (A.Y 2011-12) (Through Video Conferencing) Kapoor Watch Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit G-7, South Extension, Part-1, Circle-75(1) New Delhi New Delhi Aaack3885A (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv & Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…AR further submitted that nature of payment in hands of payer is not deciding/relevant factor for deciding nature of receipt in hands of recipient. In this regard reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 by the Ld. AR. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) and order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 are general in nature hence not adjudicated upon. As regards to Ground Nos. 2, 2.1, 2.2 and 3, it is pertinent to note that the assessee company has pa…

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the order of the

ITA/404/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.404 OF 2016 c/w I.T.A. NO.468/2016 I.T.A.NO.404/2016 BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR - FINANCE MR. C.V. RAMANA RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1)(2) (ERSTWHILE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11) ROOM NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAM…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd

In the result, the order of the

ITA/468/2016HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 35

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.404 OF 2016 c/w I.T.A. NO.468/2016 I.T.A.NO.404/2016 BETWEEN: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR - FINANCE MR. C.V. RAMANA RAO. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1)(2) (ERSTWHILE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-11) ROOM NO.228, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING KORAM…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the ass…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…ra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and read the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 10.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1, has laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms:- “It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an appellant that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where th…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…ra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and read the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 10.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1, has laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms:- “It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an appellant that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where th…

Mr. Rajan Mahajan Dgm (F&A) vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…ra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and read the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 10.3 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1, has laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms:- “It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an appellant that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where th…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the ass…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T Vs. PragaTools Ltd. 157 ITR 282 (AP) viii. CIT Vs. Wolkem (P) Ltd Co. 258 ITR 350 (Raj) ix. Tejas Networks India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the ass…

National Co-Operative Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Delhi

C.A. No.-005105-005105 - 2009Supreme Court11 Sept 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

Section 12Section 12ASection 12BSection 13Section 13(1)Section 24Section 9

…n payment constitutes income or capital receipt in the hands of the recipient is not material in determining whether the payment is revenue or capital disbursement qua the payer. It was felicitously pointed out by Macnaghten, J. in Race Course Betting 3(1980) 4 SCC 25 16 Control Board v. Wild that a “payment may be a revenue payment from the point of view of the payer and a capital payment from the point of view of the receiver and vice versa. Therefore, the decision in Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills case cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that payment made by an assessee for purchase…

Kellogg India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 137/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92(1)Section 926

…1 Kellogg India Private Limited Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 137/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Kellogg India Private Limited ACIT-15(2)(1) 1001-1002, 10th Floor Room No.357, 3rd Floor बनाम/ Hiranandani Knowledge Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…esaid expenditure did not result in acquisition of any capital asset or benefit of enduring nature in the capital field, to regard the same as capital in nature. He relied up on decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [124 ITR 1], laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms: "...It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…esaid expenditure did not result in acquisition of any capital asset or benefit of enduring nature in the capital field, to regard the same as capital in nature. He relied up on decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [124 ITR 1], laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms: "...It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…esaid expenditure did not result in acquisition of any capital asset or benefit of enduring nature in the capital field, to regard the same as capital in nature. He relied up on decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [124 ITR 1], laid down the test for determining as to what constitutes capital expenditure in the following terms: "...It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…urther appeal by the revenue, the Hon’ble High Court referring inter alia the decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. (supra) held : “8. We may also mention at this stage that to the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1, wherein the following principle of law was enunciated:— "In short, what has been held in this case is that if the expenditure is made once and for all with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring nature of a trade then there is good reason for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…capital field and it cannot be said to have been incurred to facilitate trading operation of the assessee. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for both the sides placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1/3 Taxman 69, in support of their contentions. Mr. Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue tried to distinguish the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in this case on the basis of factual matrix involved therein. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee placed reliance upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Cour…

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)

…ction with lease of property as long as ITA. Nos. 59 & 60/M/2019 230 & 231/M/2019 A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 it is towards rent for the use of the property, it is allowable as revenue expenditure. (v) The Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Manufacturing Co, [124 ITR 1 (SC)] has held that even if the payment gives benefits for a period of time it will be in the revenue field only, if it is incurred in connection with day to day operation and does not affect the capital structure of the assessee. (vi) Expenditure on technical know- how, even if of enduring character is revenue expenditure if its impact is on the r…

Phillip (India) P.Ltd ( Formelry Mf Global (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3016/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & MsFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 30Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3016/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The ACIT Range-6(3), Phillip (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly MF Global Room no. 669, Aayakar (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ No. 1, 2nd floor, C-Block, Mumbai-400 020 Modern Centre, 101, K. Vs. Khadye Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAECM4736E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala, A…

Natvar Parikh & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen IV, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2082/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40Section 40A

…lower authorities in Panbari Tea Company Ltd. (57 ITR 400) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 1 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257. 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR submits that the payment was made for realization of certain land which was not a part of asset of assessee. The assessee in its reply dated 21.12.2012 filed before the Assessing Officer clearly…