Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.755/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Solarfield Energy Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit, Circle-2(3)(2) 21, 3Rd Floor, Sethi Mansion Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Vs. Kumtha Street, Ballard Karve Marg, Mumbai- Estate, Mumbai-400038. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaocs4380A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…on revenue account.” 7. While observing the above mentioned facts the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 12 A.Y.2014-15 case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (C.A. No. 1191 of 1974 decided on 09th May, 1980 124 ITR 1, 10 (SC). In which it is observed that “there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid d…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lic Nomura Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…the assessee has treated it as to have goodwill among the investors and therefore, he treated this expense as capital in nature. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (124 ITR 1), L.H Sugar Factory & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (125 ITR 293), CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140), Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (118 ITR 261). From the above judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we will reproduce the findings of one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (supra)…

ACIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2014-15

…s a conclusive factor to determine taxability/ deductibility in the hands ,of the other party to the transaction. In this regard, the Appellant places strong reliance on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v/s. C/T [(1980) 124 ITR 1] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under (relevant extract reproduced): "In the first place, it/s not a universally true proposition that what may be a capital receipt in the hands of the payee must necessarily he capital expenditure in relation to the payer. The fact that a certain payment constitutes income or capital receipt in t…

India Index Services & Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6913/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) बनधम/ M/S. India Index Services Acit-14(2)(2) Aaykar Bhawan, 4Th Floor & Products Ltd. Vs. Room No.432, M.K. Plot No. C-1, Block G, Road, Mumbai-400020. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci5633A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sukh Sagar Syal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Disallowing Rs.74,43,942/- Being Research & Administration Fee Incurred For Strategic Business Planning By Treating The Same As Capital In Nature & The Reasons Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Rules Made Thereunder. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Modify The Above Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

…tional level for conducting the said research. The expenses for that is revenue in nature and is liable to be allowed. In support of his contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision (i) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Madras High Court), (iii) CIT Vs. Praga Tools Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 282, (iv) DCIT Vs. Reddiff.com India Ltd. 141 TTJ 679 (Mum), (v) Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 112 TTJ 94 (Chandigarh) & CIT Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(1990) 182 ITR…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Thebroma Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)(3) M/S. Theobroma Foods R.No. 672, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Jamuna Sagar, V. M.K. Road, 59/60, Shahid Bhagat New Marine Lines, Singh Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct0588K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Rohan Deshpande सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 765/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.10.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-344/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017

…no enduring benefit in the capital field. The test of enduring benefit is not a conclusive test for determining any disallowing of repairs and renovation which has also been stated by the Apex Court in the landmark case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [{1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court explained as to how the test of enduring benefit is not conclusive: " What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists m…

International Tobacco Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. International Tobacco Co. Ltd., V. A.C.I.T, Circle – 2(2)(1) C/O Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., R.No. 545, 5Th Floor, V.K.K. Menon Marg (Sahar Road), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaaci 3492 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish V. Shah & Shri Ms. Vidhi Doshi Department By : Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

…enue expenditure. 13. Coming to expenditure incurred on optic fiber cabling, we find that in the case DCIT v. Smt Geeta V. Mehta (supra) the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal considering the decision of the Apex court in the case of Empire Jute co. Ltd., v. CIT [124 ITR 1] & CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd., [86 ITR No. 549] held that expenditure incurred by way of purchase of tiles, grills, electrical fittings etc. are liable u/s. 37 of the Act. It has been held that such expenditure is not a capital expenditure, observing as under: “15. Regarding the test of enduring advantages, we find that it is a settled law that a…