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 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 366,339 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 37 Section 14A Section 271(1)(c)Section 234A Section 234B Section 115P

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefit enduring benefit revenue expenditure capital expenditure computer software section 35 commercial expediency section 37 section 37(1)section 80i section 40(a)disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1747/AHD/2009[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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &

Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

…ital asset was acquired from out of these payments made. The said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and no tangible asset accrued to the assessee. The appellant has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 124 ITR 1- Empire Jute Co Ltd v CIT, 177 ITR 377 — Alembic Chemical Works Co Ltd v CIT, 288 ITR 1 — S.A. Builders Pvt Ltd and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mcdowell Co Ltd in ITA.No. 12/99, and also recent decision of the ITAT, Kolkatta in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd in ITA.No. 470/Ca1/1998. Further, it is submitted simil…

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

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…enses as of software expenses to AO with a direction to capital expenditure verify the nature and purpose of software Without prejudice, depreciation to be 22 expenses and decide in the light of decisions allowed at 60% instead of 25% 23 in Empire Jute Co Ltd 124 ITR 1, Alembic Without prejudice, depreciation should 24 Chemicals Works Co Ltd 177 ITR 377, IBM also be allowed in respect of software India Ltd 357 ITR 88 etc. expenses of earlier years held as CIT v Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd [2012] 349 capital in nature. ITR 65 (Kar) dt. 23.3.2011 CIT v IBM India Ltd [2013] 357 ITR 88 dt. 10.4.2013 Infosys BPO Ltd…

DCIT. Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1990/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Torque Automotive Pvt. Dcit Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Mrudul Tower, Ahmedabad Vs Behind Times Of India, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 [Pan No. : Aacct6528R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.11.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…rd to the business realities. In a given case, the test of 'enduring benefit' might break down. In CIT v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. JT 282 (2) 287 this Court said: ...... As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, 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 principles laid down in this test. What is mate…

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

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 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…

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

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

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

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2834/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, India Private Limited, Bangalore. (for the merged entity Dell India Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Greens, Koramangala Inner Ring Road, Domlur Post, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN : AAACH1925Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No.134/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2012-13 The Joint Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Dell International Service…

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commisssioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 204/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…ant has claimed it as revenue expenditure in its revised return, which is also filed timely. The approach of Ld. A.O is not proper in holding it as capital expenditure against claim of appellant as revenue expenditure. The supreme Court in case of Empire Jute 124 ITR 1 (SC) has categorically observed that there may be cases where the expenditure even if incurred for obtaining as advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may I.T.A. Nos. 153 & 204/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 16 DCIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. & Rosebys Interiors India Ltd.…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 153/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

Section 234ASection 271Section 37

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1047/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…ant has claimed it as revenue expenditure in its revised return, which is also filed timely. The approach of Ld. A.O is not proper in holding it as capital expenditure against claim of appellant as revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute 124 ITR 1 (SC) has categorically observed that there may be cases where the expenditure even if incurred for obtaining as advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assesses that brings the case within the principle paid I…

M/S Silvex & Co., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Meena (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…the circumstances of case it is submitted that the disallowance sustained on mere assumption and presumption without any material on record deserves to be deleted and the assessee pays accordingly Reliance is placed on the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “What is an outgoing of capital and what is an outgoing on account of revenue depends on what the expenditure is calculated to effect from a practical and business point of view rather than upon the juristic classification of the legal rights, if any, secured, employed or exhausted in th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…ngible assets / brand development”. No new brand was purchased. The brand development expenses were incurred in the course of existing business of manufacturing and sale of liquor. He placed reliance on the following decisions (i) Empire Jute Company Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Siti Financial Consumer Fin. Ltd., 335 ITR 29 (Del.); I.T.A. No.2275/Del/2015 & 1522/Del/2014 5 (iii) CIT Vs. Usha Iron & Ferro Metal Corporation Ltd., 296 ITR 140 (Del) (iv) CIT Vs. Salora International Ltd., 308 ITR 199 (Del); (v) CIT Vs. Liberty Group Marketing Division 315 ITR 125 (P & H); (vi) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

….L (vi). CIT Vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [154 ITR 647 (Cal.)) (vii). K Ravindranathan Nair vs CIT (247 ITR 178 (SC)]  The CBDT Circular/Letter does not lay down the correct legal position which is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd. [124 ITR 1]  The CBDT Circular cannot be binding upon Assessing Officers where judicial decisions are available.  Sec. 35DDA was inserted in the statute wef 01/04/2001 by the Finance Act, 2001 for amortisation of VRS Expenditure” 9. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. DIT by fully relying on the CBDT Circular and further observed that th…

Anchor Health & Beuty Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…only aiding the company in promoting sales, distribution, production, organization, planning and execution impacting in the profit of the assessee company. The assessee relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Empire Jute Co Ltd vs CIT (1980); 124 ITR 1 3 Taxmann 69 (SC). 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee contended that it is trite to consider the nature of services rendered by Earnst & Young to the assessee company in order to determine the issue whether the impugned expenditure would fall under capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Ld.AR brought to our attention the scope of services rend…

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3361/Ahd./2010 (A.Y: 2006–07) India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 1261, Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No.12, 6th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri –East, Mumbai –400093 PAN – AAACI4227Q ……………. Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–1(2), Baroda ……………. Respondent Assesseeby : Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari Date of Hearing : 30/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2022 ORDER PER G…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…& Weaving Mills vs. CIT 31 ITR 427 (Nagpur- HC) (iii). CIT vs. Rex Talkies (18 Taxman 363 (Karnataka - HC) (iv). CIT vs. Oxford University Press 108 ITR 166 (Bom - HC) (v). ACIT vs. India United Mills Ltd (8 Taxman 182) (Bom - HC) (vi). Empire Jute Co. Ltd - 124 ITR 1 (SC) (vii). Tea Estate (P) Ltd. - 198 ITR 535 (Cal) (viii). Nila Products - 148 ITR 99 (Bom) (ix). Bhagat Industries Corporation - 126 ITR 645 (P&H) (x). Girdhari Dass & Sons - 105 ITR 339 (All) (xi). Assam Bengal Cement Co Ltd. - 27 ITR 34 (SC) (xii). Ooty Dasaprakash - 237 ITR 902 (Mad) (xiii). B and A Plantation and Industries - 242 ITR 22 (Gau)…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…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…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…enduring benefit" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT 27 ITR 34 to mean enduring in the way that fixed capital endures. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT -124 ITR 1, there may be cases where expenses, even, if resulting in the advantage of an enduring benefit, may be properly chargeable to revenue account if the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling him to manage and conduct his business more Page 34 of 67 efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed…