Fancy Corporation v. CIT

162 ITR 827High Court#17337 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 270A(1)Section 37(1)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(1)enduring benefitsearch assessmentrevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37section 139(1)assistant commissionerincriminating materialundisclosed incomesection 139

Judgments citing Fancy Corporation v. CIT

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM.OF INCOME TAX -CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…s treated this expenditure as capital expenditure as it is booked in capital work in progress and the expenses are related to earlier years. Respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Fancy Corporation vs. CIT reported in 162 ITR 827 the Ld. AO had rejected the assessee’s calim and added back with total income. The Ld AR contended that same nature of expenditure is treated as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 t…

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6486/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…s treated this expenditure as capital expenditure as it is booked in capital work in progress and the expenses are related to earlier years. Respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Fancy Corporation vs. CIT reported in 162 ITR 827 the Ld. AO had rejected the assessee’s calim and added back with total income. The Ld AR contended that same nature of expenditure is treated as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 t…

TIN TAR RETAIL CORP ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6485/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…s treated this expenditure as capital expenditure as it is booked in capital work in progress and the expenses are related to earlier years. Respectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Fancy Corporation vs. CIT reported in 162 ITR 827 the Ld. AO had rejected the assessee’s calim and added back with total income. The Ld AR contended that same nature of expenditure is treated as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases. a. CIT vs Idea Cellular reported in (2016) t6 taxmann.com 77 b. PCIT vs. Rediff.com India Ltd reported in (2020) 116 t…

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…s for plant and machinery (capital asset) for the use in the proposed new factory. The expenses no doubt was capital in nature. An expenditure incurred with a view to acquire capital asset must be treated as a capital expenditure. In Fancy Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 827 (Bom.) it was held that the mere fact that attempt to acquire capital asset failed, would not change the capital nature of the expenditure. The decision in Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. 177 ITR 377 (SC) relied upon by the Appellant’s Representative is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case the decision was in regard to the improvisat…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…s for plant and machinery (capital asset) for the use in the proposed new factory. The expenses no doubt was capital in nature. An expenditure incurred with a view to acquire capital asset must be treated as a capital expenditure. In Fancy Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 827 (Bom.) it was held that the mere fact that attempt to acquire capital asset failed, would not change the capital nature of the expenditure. The decision in Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. 177 ITR 377 (SC) relied upon by the Appellant’s Representative is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case the decision was in regard to the improvisat…