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.

How many judgments cite Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

622 judgments on BharatTax cite Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 37, Section 14A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 234A.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1)

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5978/MUM/2004[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…the issue has already been settled by the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case in A.Y. 1976-77 and no ground was taken by the Department before the Hon‘ble High Court. Similar issue has been decided by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd., 124 ITR 1 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance by observing that advertisement film was made only for advertisement and its useful life is very short and such films do not add to the capital structure of the company.‖ 95. Respectfully following the above decision, we do not find any reason t…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4754/MUM/2004[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…the issue has already been settled by the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case in A.Y. 1976-77 and no ground was taken by the Department before the Hon‘ble High Court. Similar issue has been decided by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd., 124 ITR 1 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance by observing that advertisement film was made only for advertisement and its useful life is very short and such films do not add to the capital structure of the company.‖ 95. Respectfully following the above decision, we do not find any reason t…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…s CIT [1972] 86 ITR 38 (SC) ii. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. vs Page No. 18 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited iii. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 566 (SC) iv. CIT v. Madras Auto Services (P.) Ltd. 233 ITR 468 (SC) v. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ITC (27 ITR 34) (SC) vii. CIT vs B.N. Elias & Co. (P) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) viii. Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 606 (Bom.) ix. FennerWoodroffe& Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 665 (Mad.) Cases wherein it is held that treatment in the books of accounts is irr…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

…td., Bangalore Page 48 of 70 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…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…International India(2007) 162 Taxman 01(del.) iv. CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt.Ltd. (301 ITR 368) (Del.HC) v. CITvs. Aspentech India(P.) [2010] 187 taxman 25(Delhi) vi. Bombay Steam Navigaiton co.Pvt Ltd. (56 ITR 52) (SC) vii. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (124 ITR 1) (SC) 17. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment is concerned, he submitted that the AO in the original assessment order has neither discussed nor there was an opinion with respect to issue related to prior period expenditure as project expenses written off during the r…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…International India(2007) 162 Taxman 01(del.) iv. CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt.Ltd. (301 ITR 368) (Del.HC) v. CITvs. Aspentech India(P.) [2010] 187 taxman 25(Delhi) vi. Bombay Steam Navigaiton co.Pvt Ltd. (56 ITR 52) (SC) vii. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (124 ITR 1) (SC) 17. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment is concerned, he submitted that the AO in the original assessment order has neither discussed nor there was an opinion with respect to issue related to prior period expenditure as project expenses written off during the r…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 32Section 37(1)

…served that in order to treat an expenditure as capital in nature, it should result in some enduring benefits to the appellant or creation of some asset. Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd vs CIT (1980)124 ITR 1, In which it has been held that- There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining 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 down in th…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…8 months - Rs.16,66,670/- Rs.18,78,000/- 5.2 The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decision o the co- ordinate bench in Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1989-90 and on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd 124 ITR 1 (SC). 6 ITA 5653/Mum/2009 M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd 6. The Ld.DR before us submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely relied on the order of the Tribunal of earlier years without discussing the facts for the current year. The Ld.DR furher submitted that the Assessing Officer has amortised the expenditure based on the agreements entered into and th…

Lakme Lever Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Lakme Lever Private Limited V. Pr.Cit, Mumbai -1 Unilever House 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcl5555B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Department Represented By : Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Lakme Lever Private Limited v. Pr.CIT, Mumbai -1 Unilever House 3rd Floor, Room No. 330 B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCL5555B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Department Represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. Th…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of sale of loom-hours can be termed as capital receipt and not income out of business. 5. Subsequently, in a later decision of the Apex Court, a question came up for consideration in the case of M/s. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1980) 4 SCC 25] the question which arose before the Apex Court was, if loom-hours are purchased by the manufacturing mills, whether it can be termed as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. In the said decision, the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maheswari Devi Jute Mills (supra) was also relied upon by the Revenue and after considering th…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3139/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of sale of loom-hours can be termed as capital receipt and not income out of business. 5. Subsequently, in a later decision of the Apex Court, a question came up for consideration in the case of M/s. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1980) 4 SCC 25] the question which arose before the Apex Court was, if loom-hours are purchased by the manufacturing mills, whether it can be termed as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. In the said decision, the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maheswari Devi Jute Mills (supra) was also relied upon by the Revenue and after considering th…

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2812/DEL/2019[2014-151]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2014-151

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Bipul Matta, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…ving advantage of enduring benefit to the assessee, still it would be on revenue account as there is no creation of a tangible or intangible asset of enduring nature to the assessee. The Hon ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 , has held that no tests for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure is paramount or conclusive. There is no all-embracing formula which can provide a ready solution to the problem, whether it is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Their Lordships have held that even tests of enduring benefit at times gets failed as not eac…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2843/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Asstt. Cit, Circle-3(3)(1), Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Room No. 668, Aayakar 9Th Floor, Maker Chambers Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabci 6363 G Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sandeep Raj, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal & Ms. Moksha Mehta, Ars : Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sandeep Raj, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 37

…decision support of the finding, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision support of the finding, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd Empire Jute Co. Ltd of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vs CIT ( 124 ITR 1);Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co. Ltd Vs CIT (82 ITR Vs CIT ( 124 ITR 1);Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co. Ltd Vs CIT (82 ITR Vs CIT ( 124 ITR 1);Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co. Ltd Vs CIT (82 ITR 363) and Taparia Tools Limited Vs JCIT (55 taxmann.com 361) Taparia Tools Limited Vs JCIT (55 taxmann.com 361) Taparia Tools Limited Vs JCIT (55 taxmann.com 361). The Ld. CIT(A) furth…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 2835/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited of Income-tax (LTU) v. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. PAN : AAACH1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, JM…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Infosys Ltd. Electronic City Hosur Road ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 100 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Infosys Ltd. Income-tax Electronic City Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Hosur Road Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 & M/s. Infosys Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Infosys Ltd. Electronic City Hosur Road ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 100 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACI4798L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Infosys Ltd. Income-tax Electronic City Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. Hosur Road Bangalore Bangalore 560 100 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R…

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 572/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…ch can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 and Alembic Chemical Works Ltd vs. CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the assessee had already set up the business. The…

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 571/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 & 572/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 V. M/S.Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – Sivanandam, Of Income Tax, No.1, Pulla Avenue, Corporate Circle-5(1), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai- 600 030. [Pan: Aadcr 5531 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

…ch can be revoked any time. Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT, 412 ITR 436, after analyzing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. CIBA of India Ltd, 69 ITR 692, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 124 ITR 1 and Alembic Chemical Works Ltd vs. CIT, 177 ITR 377 had held that license is only mere right to use the technical knowhow or trade mark. From the perusal of the license agreement, it is clear that appellant is conferred only right to use technical knowhow. The ownership always lies with licensor and the assessee had already set up the business. The…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Now Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1657/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…unsel for the assessee that the expenses incurred for diverting the course of the river for enabling business of mining activities carried out by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd v CIT 124 ITR 1(SC) has settled the principle for determining capital expenditure holding that only when the advantage on ITA No.1747/A/2009, 1657 and 1471/A/2015 35 account of the expenditure is in capital field ,it would be treated as capital expenditure. That if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assesses trading operations or enabling management…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…unsel for the assessee that the expenses incurred for diverting the course of the river for enabling business of mining activities carried out by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd v CIT 124 ITR 1(SC) has settled the principle for determining capital expenditure holding that only when the advantage on ITA No.1747/A/2009, 1657 and 1471/A/2015 35 account of the expenditure is in capital field ,it would be treated as capital expenditure. That if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assesses trading operations or enabling management…

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 6(3), Mumbai

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

Lakme Lever Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

Livpure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, Mumbai

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Now Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad