Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT

UHDE INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

…of the period of the serviceableness of the asset and in the creation of an enduring benefit, the expenditure was a capital expenditure. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that : “This court held in the case of Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom.), that the expression ‘repair’ must be understood in contradistinction to renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and ITA No 3775 & 4214/Mum/2016 23 UHDE India Pvt. Ltd. maintain an already existing asset. If the amount is spent for the purpose of bri…

GUMPRO DRILLING FLUIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

…wable as deduction. Reference was answered in favour of the assessee. 2.12. In CIT v. Oxford University Press 108 ITR 166 (Bom.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “This court held in the case of Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom.), that the expression ‘repair’ must be understood in contradistinction to renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. If the amount is spent for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new…

MANOIR PETRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

…of the said expenditure was held to be validly assumed. In the case of CIT v. Oxford University Press 108 2.13. ITR 166 (Bom.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “This court held in the case of Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom.), that the expression ‘repair’ must be understood in contradistinction to renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. If the amount is spent for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new…

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

…our of the assessee. 4.1. The another decision relied upon by the assessee is CIT v. Oxford University Press 108 ITR 166 (Bom.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “This court held in the case of Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom.), that the expression ‘repair’ must be understood in contradistinction to renewal or restoration and the test to be applied is to see whether as a result of the expenditure what is being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. If the amount is spent for the purpose of bringing into existence a new asset or obtaining a new…