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

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

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

ITA 2257/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…

ITO (TDS) 2(5), Mumbai vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 194

…al as discussed hereinabove which have distinguished between the lease premium and rent under the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Enterprising Enterprises V/s DCIT 45 Oriental Bank of Commerce ITA No.1300 & 1301/Mum/2014 (2007) 293 ITR 437 (SC) that the assessee which had taken a quarry on lease, the lease rent paid was capital expenditure and the Hon’ble High Court also affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Apex Court while confirming the decision of the Hon’ble High Court held that premium for lease or any lumpsum payment for obtaining a lease for a long period is a…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA/1328/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Limited

ITA/996/2011HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Telenet Ltd

ITA/1333/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

CIT vs. Bhartihexacom Ltd

ITA/114/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

CIT vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

ITA/177/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1328 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1679 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…d thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for 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 roy…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…l was not in the nature of rent, and thus, capital payment. It was emphasized that the payment was not for use of land but for the land to be put to use by the assessee. Salami was notrent paid in advance. 19. In Enterprising Enterprises vs. 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 TTR 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…