Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. v. Addl CIT

60 SOT 22Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16068 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. v. Addl CIT

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…f the expenditure does not result in creation of new asset, then the same cannot be considered as capital in nature. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd vs. Addl CIT (60 SOT 22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying any…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…f the expenditure does not result in creation of new asset, then the same cannot be considered as capital in nature. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd vs. Addl CIT (60 SOT 22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying any…

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…f the expenditure does not result in creation of new asset, then the same cannot be considered as capital in nature. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd vs. Addl CIT (60 SOT 22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying any…

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…f the expenditure does not result in creation of new asset, then the same cannot be considered as capital in nature. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Mumbai ITAT in the case of Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd vs. Addl CIT (60 SOT 22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying any…

AGRA ENGINEERING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 2176/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa2297H

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…said income paid to the various persons is not liable to be assessed in India. Therefore, in the said circumstances the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition which is liable to be deleted in view of the law settled in Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Product Ltd. 60 SOT 22 (ITAT, Mumbai), CIT Vs. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Product Ltd. IT Appeal No.2116 of 2013 with IT Appeal No.169 of 2014 (Bombay High I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011,736/Mum/2012& 2176/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Court) and Armayesh Global Vs. ACIT, 12(3), Mumbai – 51 SOT 564 (ITAT-Mumbai) and CIT Vs. EON Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del…

AGRA ENGINEERING CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 1264/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011, I.T.A.No.736/Mum/2012 & 2176/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S. Agra Engineering Co. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/5, Laxmi Towers, Income Tax 12(3) Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra(East) Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400051 R.No.137, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa2297H

For Appellant: Shri Narayan AtalFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…said income paid to the various persons is not liable to be assessed in India. Therefore, in the said circumstances the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition which is liable to be deleted in view of the law settled in Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Product Ltd. 60 SOT 22 (ITAT, Mumbai), CIT Vs. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Product Ltd. IT Appeal No.2116 of 2013 with IT Appeal No.169 of 2014 (Bombay High I.T.A. No.1264/Mum/2011,736/Mum/2012& 2176/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Court) and Armayesh Global Vs. ACIT, 12(3), Mumbai – 51 SOT 564 (ITAT-Mumbai) and CIT Vs. EON Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del…

Gujrat Reclaim and Rubber Products Ltd. v. Addl CIT (60 SOT 22) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax