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

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

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

ITA 4849/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…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby

ITA 589/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1500/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5, Vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRISANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1500/CHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. M/s Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AACCS2689E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 589/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. M/s Satyam Auto Components L…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby

ITA 1500/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1500/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-5, Vs. M/S Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Manjit Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate
Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, “बी ” च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी एन. के. सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRISANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1500/CHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. M/s Satyam Auto Components Ludhiana Pvt Ltd., G.T.Road, Hero बनाम Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AACCS2689E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 589/CHD/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT, Circle-5, Vs. M/s Satyam Auto Components L…

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

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 914/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…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 recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 912/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…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 recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

ITA 911/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 40

…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…

M/S. Shree Lakhi Metals and Steels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 3, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed partly in above terms

ITA 523/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara) I.T.A No. 523/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Shree Lakhi Metals & Steels Pvt. Ltd.....…..……………….…...……..…..………….....….....Appellant 3Rd Floor 8C, Maharshi Devendra Road Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aakcs 8597 F] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 3, Kolkata......................................................Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 17Th, 2019 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Kolkata Passed In Case No. F. No. Pr. Cit- 3/Hqrs.-3/Kol/U/S263/Shree Lakhi Metals & Steel Pvt. Ltd./2017-18, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…s business expenditure as subsequently in that case the said relation of the directors came back and joined the company and served after obtaining higher study. In the case of Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (reported in 159 ITR 673,Calcutta) this Court held that twenty-eight officers of the assessee company were sent for USA for practical training in running the aluminum factory. Before they had gone for abroad training they entered into an agreement with the company that on return they would at least serve for five years at a settled remuneration. Therefore, this expenditu…

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

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

ITA 910/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Gosain[A.Y 2007-08] M/S Pernod Ricard [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, [Formerly Known As Central Circle -31 Seagram India Pvt Ltd New Delhi 104, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Pan: Aaacs 4781 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Smt. Rashi Khanna, Adv. Shri Yojit Pareek, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT-DR
Section 153A

…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…

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…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: (1983) 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…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…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: (1983) 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…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)

…ITR 405 (Del.) - CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd: 256 ITR 395 (Bom.) - Addl. CIT v. Aniline Dye Stuffs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.: 138 ITR 843(Bom) - Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT: 196 ITR 845 (Cal.) - Hindustan Aluminim Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) - CIT v. Rane (Madras) Ltd.: 215 CTR 250 (Chenn.) - Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 98 ITR 20 (All.) - CIT v. Shah Theatres P. Ltd. : 169 ITR 499 (Raj.) - CIT v. Malwa Vanaspati & Chemicals Co. Ltd., 149 CTR 283 (MP) - CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.: 182 ITR 62 (Ker.) - CCIT v. Senapathy White…

Grp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1727/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1727/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grp Limited बिधम/ Dcit-10(2) 510, ‘A’ Wing, Kohinoor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. City Commercial-1, Kirol Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, L. B. Shashtri Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400070. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1890M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Being Aggrieved Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Mumbai, This Appeal Petition Is Being Filed Lo Consider The Following Grounds Of Appeal, Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…m 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, v. CIT [1982] 30 CTR (Cal) 363 ; [1983] 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. Issuing debentures at a discount is another such instance where, although the assessee has incurred the liabil…

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)Section 92C

…td., 333 ITR 18 (Del.). (iii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd., [2008] 166 taxman 115 (Del.). (iv) CIT vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd., 332 ITR 594 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Euro India Ltd., [2014] 223 Taxman 97 (Del.). (vi) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 159 ITR 673 (Cal.). (vii) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.). (viii) CIT vs. Graphite India Ltd., 221 ITR 420 (Cal.). (ix) Binani Cement Ltd. vs. CIT, 227 CTR 49 (Cal.). (x) DCIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd., 57 taxmann.com (Guj.). 30. He submitted that identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessm…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 762/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…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: (1983) 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 lia…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 761/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Suchit Jolly, Adv
Section 14A

…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: (1983) 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 lia…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Iti Holdings & Investment Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 647/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s ITI Holdings and Investment Limited (Formerly The Investment of The Assistant Commissioner of Trust of India Ltd.), v. Income Tax (OSD), C/o M/s Subbaraya Aiyar Corporate Circle -3, Padmanabhan & Ramamani Chennai - 600 034. Advocates, New No.75 (Old No.105), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore…

Iti Holdings and Investment Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 646/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s ITI Holdings and Investment Limited (Formerly The Investment of The Assistant Commissioner of Trust of India Ltd.), v. Income Tax (OSD), C/o M/s Subbaraya Aiyar Corporate Circle -3, Padmanabhan & Ramamani Chennai - 600 034. Advocates, New No.75 (Old No.105), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Almal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1232/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgyupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA

…sessee. However, CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that expenditure in question was allowable as a deduction. The CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hiundustan Aluminium Corporation vs CIT 159 ITR 673 (Cal) wherein on identical facts the claim for deduction as a business expenditure was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court to be allowable as deduction. Following the aforesaid decision the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.1 before the Tribunal. The ld. DR…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4202/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…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 ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. DCIT vs. M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT over a number of years and allowed a proportionate deduc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(1) Udaan Bhawan, Terminal 1B, New Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccd3570F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 226/Del/2011 (Arising Ita No.2720/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. Advocate and Shri Ankit Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…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 ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. DCIT vs. M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. vs.ACIT over a number of years and allowed a proportionate deduc…