Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

144 ITR 474High Court1983#893 most cited

What is Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Calcutta High Court held that a lump sum revenue expenditure, which is of a significant amount and provides benefits spread over several years, can be allowed as a deduction proportionately over the period of benefit. This approach prevents distortion of the profits of a single assessment year.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 144 ITR 474 · Calcutta High Court · revenue expenditure · deferred deduction · spreading expenditure · lump sum payment · technical assistance and training · deduction over period of benefit · Section 37 · business expenditure timing · proportionate deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194Section 194ASection 32AD

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(2)section 11bsection 80ib(4)section 10(2)(xv)section 36(l)(iii)section 92b(1)section 92(1)section 36(l)initial assessment yearlegal expensessection 43(1)section 80hhc

Judgments citing Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…expenditure did not result in bringing into existence any capital asset of enduring in nature. The Tribunal further found that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 55 CTR (Cal.) 237: (1986) 159 ITR 673 (Cal) was applicable and following that decision held that the expenditure was allowable as incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance. The case relied upon by the Tribunal was subsequently followed in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 328 (Cal).…

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

…because of the huge amount involved, but also because of the benefit accruing for the remaining period of lease. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Kol.) and also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) to supplement the assessee’s argument that where the revenue 7 India Flysafe Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT expenditure incurred is of a considerable magnitude and its benefit can be spre…

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2601/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…assessee by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 6.04.2016 passed in ITA No. 224/2016 and 225/2016 in the case of assessee's sister concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused t…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…assessee by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 6.04.2016 passed in ITA No. 224/2016 and 225/2016 in the case of assessee's sister concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused t…

ACIT, CC- 31, New Delhi vs. Pernod Richard India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1607/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…assessee by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 6.04.2016 passed in ITA No. 224/2016 and 225/2016 in the case of assessee's sister concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused t…

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 31, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 92C

…assessee by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 6.04.2016 passed in ITA No. 224/2016 and 225/2016 in the case of assessee's sister concern, viz., M/s Seagram Distilleries Pvt Ltd.. The Ld. AR also cited Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. CIT: 159 ITR 673, CIT v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (254 ITR 503), CIT v. Salora International (308 ITR 199) (Del.), CIT v. Casio India Ltd. (335 ITR 196) (Del) and CIT v. Adidas India Marketing Ltd. (195 Taxman 256) (Del.) to support his contentions. 8.3 The Ld. CIT (DR) supported the order of the Ld. TPO/AO. 8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused t…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 473/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 472/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 471/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Saregama India Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 470/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 312/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 310/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

M/S Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

ITA 309/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)/CIT vs. Amalgamated Jam bad Syndicate (P) Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 698 (Cal.)/CIT vs. D. Mandal [1988] 41 Taxman 129 (Cal.)/CIT Vs. Zoroaster & Co. [1982] 133 ITR 559 (Raj.)/Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Cal.)/Gujrat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [-1983]143 ITR 822 (Guj.). The above argument of the assessee is not considered to be tenable with following observations: 1. The assessee has accepted that MG royalty is paid for acquiring absolute right for the reproduction of the music cassette/Cc on a particular film as per agreement…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. Thus in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, ( 1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 363: (]983) 144 ITR 474 (Cal) the Calcutta High Court upheld the claim of the assessee to spread out a lump sum payment to secure technical assistance and training over a number of years and allowed a proportionate deduction in the accounting year in question. 16. Issuing debentures at a discount is another such instance where, although the assessee has incurred the li…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…it over a period of ensuing years. In fact, allowing the entire expenditure in one year might give a very distorted picture of the profits of a particular year. Thus in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, ( 1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 363: (]983) 144 ITR 474 (Cal) the Calcutta High Court upheld the claim of the assessee to spread out a lump sum payment to secure technical assistance and training over a number of years and allowed a proportionate deduction in the accounting year in question. 16. Issuing debentures at a discount is another such instance where, although the assessee has incurred the li…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…expansion of its business operations, which was later abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to ac…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…expansion of its business operations, which was later abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to ac…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…expansion of its business operations, which was later abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to ac…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…expansion of its business operations, which was later abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to ac…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…expansion of its business operations, which was later abandoned was held to be revenue expenditure  CIT v. Vardhman Spinning &General Mills: 176 Taxman 157 (P&H)  Asiatic oxygen Ltd. v. CIT :190 ITR 328 (Cal.)  Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.)  CIT v. Graphite India Ltd. : 221 ITR 420 (Cal)  CIT v. Coromandal fertilizers: 247 ITR 417 (AP)  Enpro India Ltd. v. DCIT:113 Taxman 132 (Del. Trib.)  CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. : ITA No. 758/2008  Sutlej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT : 94 TTJ 108 (Del) It is thus submitted that merely because part of the advances related to ac…