HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

258 ITR 380High Court2002#4327 most cited

What is HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred on leasehold improvements, including interior decoration and replacement of existing fixtures in rented premises, can be considered revenue expenditure if it maintains the quality of production and protects current assets.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

HEDE Consultancy · leasehold improvements · revenue expenditure · rented premises · interior decoration · replacement of roof · replacement of floor · business expediency · maintenance · Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 14bsection 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 28(iv)section 43b(b)section 36(2)going concernbusiness expediencysection 36(1)(vii)section 40(a)(i)specified authority

Judgments citing HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Sai Om Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1962/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)

…r considering any expense as capital or revenue is laid out and as per the said judgments, the above expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. HEDE Consultancy (P) Ltd. - 258 ITR 380 2. Decision of ITAT Kolkata Special Bench in the case of Peerless Securities Ltd. v. JCIT - 93 TT J 325 3. Decision of Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Saravana Spg. Mills (P) Ltd. - 293 ITR 201 4. Decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v.Indian Visit.com (P) Ltd - 219 CTR 603 5. Decision of High Court of Delhi in the case…

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the expenditure on lease hold is revenue in nature and also relied upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Talathi & Panthaki Associates (P.) Ltd. (343 ITR 309) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. (258 ITR 380) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. (175 Taxman 132) (Delhi) and Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. Vs. DCIT (48 taxmann.com 156) (ITAT Mumbai) and Peri India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT (71 taxmann.com 79)(ITAT Mumbai). On the other hand Ld representative of the department has placed reliance upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.…

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG OSD (7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 6786/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the expenditure on lease hold is revenue in nature and also relied upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Talathi & Panthaki Associates (P.) Ltd. (343 ITR 309) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. HEDE Consultancy (P.) Ltd. (258 ITR 380) (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. (175 Taxman 132) (Delhi) and Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. Vs. DCIT (48 taxmann.com 156) (ITAT Mumbai) and Peri India (P.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT (71 taxmann.com 79)(ITAT Mumbai). On the other hand Ld representative of the department has placed reliance upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.…

JCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai vs. Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4088/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d by the appellant and not to the entire building and therefore the expenditure clearly falls in the realm of revenue expenditure. Further, similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Hede Consultancy P. Ltd reported in 258 ITR 380 (HC)(Bom). The nature of expenditure incurred by the appellant are such that no new capital assets came into being and the appellant does not derive any enduring business advantage by expending this amount. Therefore, the action of the Ld. AO in treating this expenditure as capital expenditure is not supported by the evidence on record and is acc…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3046/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d by the appellant and not to the entire building and therefore the expenditure clearly falls in the realm of revenue expenditure. Further, similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Hede Consultancy P. Ltd reported in 258 ITR 380 (HC)(Bom). The nature of expenditure incurred by the appellant are such that no new capital assets came into being and the appellant does not derive any enduring business advantage by expending this amount. Therefore, the action of the Ld. AO in treating this expenditure as capital expenditure is not supported by the evidence on record and is acc…

Dystar India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3045/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…d by the appellant and not to the entire building and therefore the expenditure clearly falls in the realm of revenue expenditure. Further, similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Hede Consultancy P. Ltd reported in 258 ITR 380 (HC)(Bom). The nature of expenditure incurred by the appellant are such that no new capital assets came into being and the appellant does not derive any enduring business advantage by expending this amount. Therefore, the action of the Ld. AO in treating this expenditure as capital expenditure is not supported by the evidence on record and is acc…

Venus Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. WD2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4539/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4539/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2003-04) Venus Detective & Security बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Private Limited, 2(3) (4), Vs. 16 Commissariat House, Room No.556, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4539/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2003-04) Venus Detective and Security बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Private Limited, 2(3) (4), Vs. 16 Commissariat House, Room No.556, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AABCV1733B अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri Nitin Joshi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवधई की त…