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 366,459 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Duke Retreat Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2918/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2918/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10(2)(v)Section 143(3)Section 31(1)

…"यायपीठ “बी बी बी” पुणे बी आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव , लेखा सद" एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.2918/PUN/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT, Circle-10, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune …. Vs. The Duke Retreat Ltd., Mumbai Pune Road, Khandala, Pune …. ""य…

Aditya Birla Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1115/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…ITA No.1115/Mum/2012 Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी सी .नाग" "साद, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND 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.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal

WTA/4/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I.T.A. NO.4 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(3), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: THE VYSYA BANK LTD., (NOW ING VYSYA BANK LTD.,) ING VYSYA HOUSE NO.25, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560001 PAN:AABCT0529M. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue against the direction of the Ld

ITA 1106/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Centre, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle- New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi Cr Building, Ip Estate, Pan: Aaacg1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle-12(1), (Now Circle-10(2), 4-7/C, Dda Shopping Cr Building, Ip Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg1622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR
Section 144Section 144CSection 14A

…ure benefits from the existing asset beyond its previously assessed standard of performance is included in the gross book value, e.g. an increase in capacity. AR further placed reliance in this regard on the following decisions:  Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 124 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills 66 ITR 710 (SC)  CIT v. Sarvana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. : 293 ITR 201 (SC)  Comfort Living Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: 363 ITR 182 (Del)  CIT vs. Volga Restaurant: 253 ITR 405 (Del)  CIT vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra P. Ltd.: 322 ITR 590  CIT v. Bharat Cinema : 121 ITR 165 (HC) (P&H)  CIT & Anr. vs. Saga…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1416/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed counsel, these items are covered by following decisions:- a) ITA No. 2690/M/93 vide its order dated 20.12.2002 for assessment year 1989-90. b) ITA No. 2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “ 17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed b…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7092/MUM/2005[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ed counsel, these items are covered by following decisions:- a) ITA No. 2690/M/93 vide its order dated 20.12.2002 for assessment year 1989-90. b) ITA No. 2419/M/94 vide its order dated 4.8.2003 for assessment year 90-91. c) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). d) CIT Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 542 (cal). e) CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No.s 2) (2002) 254 ITR 503 (cal). Vide para 17.3 of its order dated 20.12.2002, the Tribunal for the assessment year 89-90 in ITA No. 2690/M/93heldas under: “ 17.3 We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed b…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor, D.R

…nables the assessee to conduct its operation in more seamless, smooth and efficient manner. The Ld. A.R. while relying heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) which in turn relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (S.C). Finally, the Ld. A.R. prayed before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A)’s order may kindly be affirmed on this issue in view of the facts of the case and ratio laid down by the Apex Court. 17 M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. 27. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. A perusal…

Mili Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-VI, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1934/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 194HSection 28

…t whether the receipt is a capital or revenue receipt, one has to see what is the nature/character of receipt in the hands of the receiver and not its nature in the hands of the payer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). So what we have to see is what it is character of income in the hands of the assessee. So, in these facts and circumstances of the case as enumerated above, the assessee on receipt of Rs.9,42,327/- on which TDS of Rs.1,12,787/- was deducted by M/s. S. M. Estates, in its books (i.e. assessee’s book) reduced from the advances given to the DLF f…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3613/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3612 & 3613/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., ACIT, Circle- Noida, A- Wing (3rd Floor), D- 3, Noida. District Center Saket, Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAACL1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Ramit Katyal, Adv. Department by : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR : 19-04-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 18-07-2018 O R D E R PER R.…

Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 3612/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3612 & 3613/Del/2017 Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., ACIT, Circle- Noida, A- Wing (3rd Floor), D- 3, Noida. District Center Saket, Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAACL1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Ramit Katyal, Adv. Department by : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR : 19-04-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 18-07-2018 O R D E R PER R.…

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)Section 92C

…t in order to decide whether this expenditure is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. To the same effect is the decision of Supreme Court in Empire Jute Go. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1. 71. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer/DRP. 72. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused he orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee during the year has claimed addition of assets under the head global IT and I Projects amounting to R…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Viswams, Tirunelveli

ITA 1936/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)

…shall not amount to capital expenditure. The Kerala High Court reversed the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal on identical issue. The Kerala High Court has also placed its reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, when the expenditure remains in the revenue field, the provisions of Explanation 1 to 32 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly held the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and peruse…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. N.Viswanath, Tirunelveli

ITA 1935/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)

…shall not amount to capital expenditure. The Kerala High Court reversed the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal on identical issue. The Kerala High Court has also placed its reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, when the expenditure remains in the revenue field, the provisions of Explanation 1 to 32 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly held the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and peruse…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. N.Viswanath, Tirunelveli

ITA 1934/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)

…shall not amount to capital expenditure. The Kerala High Court reversed the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal on identical issue. The Kerala High Court has also placed its reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, when the expenditure remains in the revenue field, the provisions of Explanation 1 to 32 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly held the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and peruse…

DCIT Circle 1, Tirunelveli vs. Aremkay, Tirunelveli

ITA 1932/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1932/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 32(1)

…shall not amount to capital expenditure. The Kerala High Court reversed the decision of Cochin Bench of this Tribunal on identical issue. The Kerala High Court has also placed its reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, when the expenditure remains in the revenue field, the provisions of Explanation 1 to 32 of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly held the expenditure as revenue expenditure. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and peruse…

M/S. Raaj Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6581/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Raaj Khosla & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D- Circle-15(1), New Delhi 28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan :Aaacr6118B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.07.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi, [In Short ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] For Assessment Year 2011-12, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…4 of the Tribunal of Hyderabad bench in the case of Social Media India Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 390/Hyd./2013 for assessment year 2009-10. The Ld. counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Industries, reported in 124 ITR 1 (SC). 4. The Ld. counsel further submitted before us that in case of the few premises, the landlords have adjusted the security deposits towards pending rent whereas in other cases the landlords refused to refund the security deposits. Thus according to him, the security deposit adjusted against rent would be in the nature of business expenditure.…

Jt CIT (OSD) 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharti Investments and Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 3272/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Jt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Dharti Investments & Tax (Osd-6(2)(1), Holding Ltd., 1St Floor, Jai Centre R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Churchgate 34, P.D.Mello Road Mumbai – 400 020 Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Dharti Investments & Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Holding Ltd., Income Tax – 6(2) 1St Floor, Jai Centre Mumbai 34, P.D.Mello Road Opp. Red Gate Masjid, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd2509C Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee By Shri Madhur Agarwal Date Of Hearing 07/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2018

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 94(7)

…Dharti Investment & Holdings Ltd., in this category. The test of enduring benefit was not an infallible test as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in the case of CIT v Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (1980 122 ITR49 (SC) & Empire Jute Co. Ltd v CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the following Hon'ble judicial decisions :- 1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Airport Authority of India vs. CIT "If the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business it is properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital…

Bayer Cropscience Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7619/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swarup, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(2)

…nditure results into an advantage of enduring nature to the assessee in the capital field or the revenue field so as to decide the exact nature of such expenditure. Reliance is placed on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Empire Jute Company Ltd vs. CIT[124 ITR 1]. 2.3.7.4 The test for allowability of an expenditure as a deduction under section 37(1) is to judge, whether the expense has been incurred with the sole object of furthering the trade or business interest of the assessee unalloyed or unmixed with any other consideration and that expenditure was necessitated or justified by commercial expediency. R…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1762/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘डी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम" "ी एन.के."ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य एवं सु"ी मधु"मता रॉय, "या"यक सद"य । BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) The DCIT Aagam Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-1(1)(1) 9,Amul Society Vs. Ahmedabad Nr.Shardamandir Road Sukhipura, Paldi Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAICA 8530 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V.K…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Hyper Realty Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1161/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ovide an enduring benefit to the business, the same is in revenue field and thus is liable to be treated as revenue expenditure. In this context, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd., 124 ITR 1 (SC). Furthermore, it is nobody’s case that the expenditure in question, which we have already enumerated above, results in creation of any fixed or an enduring asset so as to be capitalised. Thus, the objections raised by the Assessing Officer, in our view, have been rightly negated by the CIT(A). M/s. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Ors. 11. More…