Enterprising Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner

293 ITR 437Supreme Court of India2007#3800 most cited

What is Enterprising Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner authority for?

A lump sum payment of lease premium, whether paid at once or in installments, constitutes capital expenditure, distinguishing it from rent or royalty which are revenue expenditures.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner · lease premium · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · royalty · rent · section 35ab · section 35abb · section 35a · section 35

Issues it is cited on

section 35absection 35abbtest of enduring benefitsection 35aresulting companypptdemergerjdaput to useenduring benefitsection 35amalgamation

Judgments citing Enterprising Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [PAN: AABCB2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/o I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 497/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…s.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 496/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…s.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2143/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…s.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

ITA 2142/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80I

…s.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 495/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…poration Limited. order dated July 29,2011 (Page 71 to 87 the Paper Book - paragraphs 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

Birla Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 494/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…poration Limited. order dated July 29,2011 (Page 71 to 87 the Paper Book - paragraphs 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2112/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…poration Limited. order dated July 29,2011 (Page 71 to 87 the Paper Book - paragraphs 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

ITA 2111/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…poration Limited. order dated July 29,2011 (Page 71 to 87 the Paper Book - paragraphs 10-15 at page-77 to 84). The said decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Enterprising Enterprises v Deputy Commissioner, (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC). The said order of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been followed in first appeal for the assessment years 2007-08 (page 3, para 4), 2008-09 (page 55, para 4) and 2009- 10 (page 110, para 5). It was submitted that in this year also, the compensation amount of Rs.23,71,3401- should be held to be revenue in nature and an admissible deduction. 21. The…

Nalco vs. Comnr.of Income Tax

ITA/133/2012HC Orissa09 May 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

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

…n 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 sake of brevity and convenience. From the preceding discussion, the following issues aris…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

…of India in the initial year. On appeal the Revenue relying on the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Jt.CIT Vs Mukund Ltd (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs DCIT (293 ITR 437) claimed that such expenditure was capital in nature and therefore not permissible. Rather it was canvassed by the Revenue that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the order of the AO be upheld. After considering the submissions of the parties and the judici…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

…of India in the initial year. On appeal the Revenue relying on the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Jt.CIT Vs Mukund Ltd (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs DCIT (293 ITR 437) claimed that such expenditure was capital in nature and therefore not permissible. Rather it was canvassed by the Revenue that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd Vs CIT (supra), the order of the AO be upheld. After considering the submissions of the parties and the judici…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…O vs. Pritam Juice 124 ITD 237. • Rent paid by Lessee for acquiring leasehold right to extract minerals as one fixed amount for entire lease is Capital Expenditure, and proportionate amount of Rent not allowable as deduction; Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437 (SC). • Treatment in Books of Accounts vs. Nature of Expense: The treatment of particular expense or a provision in the Books of Accounts can never be conclusively determinative of the nature 14 ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. DCIT vs. M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…O vs. Pritam Juice 124 ITD 237. • Rent paid by Lessee for acquiring leasehold right to extract minerals as one fixed amount for entire lease is Capital Expenditure, and proportionate amount of Rent not allowable as deduction; Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437 (SC). • Treatment in Books of Accounts vs. Nature of Expense: The treatment of particular expense or a provision in the Books of Accounts can never be conclusively determinative of the nature 14 ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. DCIT vs. M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT o…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC) submitted that payment for acquiring leasehold rights was capital expenditure. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 11. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that by virtue of upfront lease rent of "5,96,80,000/- paid, assessee had obtained lease right for 99 years over 14.92 acres of land. Assessee has sta…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC) submitted that payment for acquiring leasehold rights was capital expenditure. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 11. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that by virtue of upfront lease rent of "5,96,80,000/- paid, assessee had obtained lease right for 99 years over 14.92 acres of land. Assessee has sta…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasterners Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 675/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC) submitted that payment for acquiring leasehold rights was capital expenditure. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 11. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that by virtue of upfront lease rent of "5,96,80,000/- paid, assessee had obtained lease right for 99 years over 14.92 acres of land. Assessee has sta…

Sundram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. Addl.CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 591/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

…d only be considered as Revenue in nature. 10. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relying on the judgment dated 4th December, 2006 of Apex Court in the ITA Nos.591 & 675/12, 1165, :- 5 -: 1166, 1171 & 1172/13. Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT 293 ITR 437(SC) submitted that payment for acquiring leasehold rights was capital expenditure. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 11. orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that by virtue of upfront lease rent of "5,96,80,000/- paid, assessee had obtained lease right for 99 years over 14.92 acres of land. Assessee has sta…

Asian Heart Institute & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2865/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 14A

…e disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by the Special bench of Mumbai Tribunal Mukund Ltd (13 SOT 558) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs. DCIT (293 ITR 437). 5. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and also certain other decision to contend that the premium amount paid by the assessee should be treated as advance rentals and hence the proportionate amount should be allowed as deduction. 6. We also heard Ld D…