Enterprising Enterprises v. DCIT

268 ITR 95High Court2004#11401 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2022.

Judgments citing Enterprising Enterprises v. DCIT

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. JCIT, Range-2, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 264/CTK/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur vs. JCIT, Range-2, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 447/CTK/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. JCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 278/CTK/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 301/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 421/CTK/2013[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2010-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. JCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 325/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 73/CTK/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 09 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Ita No Ita No.421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 .421/Ctk/2013 & 301/Ctk/2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011 11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Ita No Ita No.264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 .264/Ctk/2017 & Ita No.278/Ctk/2015 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2012 15 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.S.PoddarFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

…amount in various installments, the payment does not lose its character as a capital payment if the sum determined was capital in nature”. He further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises vs DCIT (2004) 268 ITR 95 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that the assessee firm had taken a quarry on lease for a period of ten years for excavation of granites, it was held that the proportionate lease rent paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure. It was the submission that the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour…

Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-8, Ahmedabad

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 776/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254

…the order of the authorities below and further contended that the issue of depreciation on the payment of lease premium is covered against the assessee by the judgments of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs. DCIT reported in 268 ITR 95 which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 293 ITR 437. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the sides and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph which are not in dispute. Therefore, we are not repeating the same for the sa…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was not rent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 437, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Madras High Court reported in [2004] 268 ITR 95, after referring to Pingle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 40 ITR 67 (SC); Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 718 (SC) and Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 817 (SC), stating that distinction lies between the case of where royalty or rent was paid and where the entire amount of lease premium was paid either at one tim…

Enterprising Enterprises v. DCIT (268 ITR 95) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax