Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT

124 ITR 561High Court1980#5102 most cited

What is Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for holding assets is deductible even if no income is actually earned from those assets for a period. The mere fact that assets were not in use does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deductions for holding expenses.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. vs. CIT · 124 ITR 561 · deduction of expenditure · holding assets · income not earned · actual use of assets · depreciation · business purpose

Also reported as

122 DTR 106

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 24Section 32Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 80IBSection 131Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(a)actual payment basisopening wdvset off of lossessection 80hsection 145asection 80hhsection 40a(2)(b)block of assetssection 40a(2)written down valuesection 80ib

Judgments citing Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT

Pride Foramer S.A vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-004395-004397 - 2010Supreme Court17 Oct 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 32(2)Section 37

…The efforts of the assessee finally culminated in a firm contract being awarded to it in 1998 which was formalized in 1999. A copy of the said contract is on record. As held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. V. CIT in 124 ITR 561, there is a marked distinction between “lull in business” and “going out of business”. A temporary discontinuance of business may, in certain circumstances, give rise to an inference that a business is going through a lean period of transition and it could be revived if proper circumstances arise. In the present case, the period between…

Janak Texturisers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 472/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 24Section 3

…. 60 DTR (HP) 138. 5.5 The Ld. A.R. thus submitted, that the claim of the assessee being in accordance with law cannot be denied. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 561 wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that, even though no 6 M/s. Janak Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. income was actually earned for sometime from the assets which were in possession of the company that fact was not relevant for considering the assessee’s claim of deduction of expenditure incurred for holding these assets. 5.6 On the contrary, the Ld.…

Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6698/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The…

Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Aventis Pharma Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 7712/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The…

Sanofi India Ltd Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

ITA 6626/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR) &
Section 32Section 32(1)

…claiming depreciation that the assets should have been owned by the person claiming depreciation and it should have been used for purpose of the business or profession. To strengthen this view, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- 1.5 206 ITR 682, 124 ITR 561 Bom, 131 ITR 884 Gujarat, where it is held that assets not used for business purposes, no depreciation is allowable. In case of Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 160 Taxman 325, it was held that to claim write-off of discarded unit, plant and machinery u/s.31(2)(iii), same plant and machinery must have been used during such year. The…

Highstreet Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 3(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 92/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihighstreet Developers Vs. Ito-3(1)(4) Private Limited Aaykar Bhawan Sp Centre, 41/44 M.K.Road Minoo Desai Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Colaba Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aabch6648H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 37Section 37(1)

…that the business is not wound up or discontinued but was "a lull in business' and the company has "temporarily suspended its business activity". The appellant, inter alia, has relied on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd., 124 ITR 561 to assert that a lull in business is not closure of business and therefore, any revenue expenditure related to business activity is allowable. I find the case laws relied upon by the appellant are not disputed at all. This position has been endorsed by numerous jurisdictional decisions including in Bechtel International Inc. Vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai…

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

ITA 7196/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…Factory was deleted by the Tribunal accepting the alternative contention of the assessee that the expenses incurred to protect the business assets should be allowed as deduction as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. 124 ITR 561. It was also held by the Tribunal that the assets of Kavesar Unit having already entered the block of assets of the assessee, depreciation thereon could not be disallowed on the ground of non-user as the use of block of assets was to be considered and not the use of individual assets. Respectfully following the orders of the coordinate bench of t…

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6789/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6789/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Dcit Circle -6(2) M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7196/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Addl. Cit Circle -6(2) Ltd., R.No. 669, Nerolac House, K.G. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1376N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri. Rignesh K. Das (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145ASection 14A

…Factory was deleted by the Tribunal accepting the alternative contention of the assessee that the expenses incurred to protect the business assets should be allowed as deduction as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. 124 ITR 561. It was also held by the Tribunal that the assets of Kavesar Unit having already entered the block of assets of the assessee, depreciation thereon could not be disallowed on the ground of non-user as the use of block of assets was to be considered and not the use of individual assets. Respectfully following the orders of the coordinate bench of t…

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Dcit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Acit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Central Circle-13, Investments Ltd., New Delhi R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…ollowing precedents: (i) CIT Vs. Rampur Timber Company Limited, 129 ITR 58(Allahabad HC) (ii) Nakodar Bus Services Private Ltd., 179 ITR 506 (Punjab HC) (iii) Chinai & Co. Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 206 ITR 616 (Bom HC) (iv) Hindustan Chemicals Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 561 (v) Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 64 ITR 568, 584 (Cal.) 3.1 The Assessing Officer, however, noted that in earlier assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 also similar situation was observed. In view of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had no 6 ITA Nos.4807/Del/2014; 4654/Del/2014 5434/Del/2015; 5435/Del/2015 & 5058/Del/201…

Bakhtawar Construction Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amogh M. Ghaisas (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

…) CIT Vs Baharat Nidhi Ltd , 60 ITR 520 (Punjab), (ii) Mrs Sarojini Rajah Vs CIT 71 ITR 504 (Madras), (iii) V.VE. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. CIT, 72 ITR 114(Madras), (iv) Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT, 83 ITR 1 (Bombay), (v) Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 561 (Bombay), (vi) CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd, 199 ITR 94 (Calcutta), (vii) Lakshmi Narayan Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 205 CTR 359 (Kerala), 3 ITA No. 6915/M/11 & 5131/M/14 - M/s Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. (viii) Akarsh Printers Ltd. Vs. ITO, Calcutta Tribunal ITA No. 2279 of 2000, (ix) ITO Vs. Good Value Marketing Co. Ltd., Bombay Trib…

ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai vs. P. N. Writer & Co., Mumbai

ITA 2109/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, M/S. P.N. Writer & Co., 201, 2Nd Floor, Astoria Hotel, Ward 20(2)(5), Vs. Room No.208, J Tata Road, Churchgate, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai - 21 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaefp5561D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)

…CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody, 1979 AIR 373, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT CA Nos.10547/48 of 2011 SC and Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. vs. CIT 1980 124 ITR 561 Bom HC,. 5. The Ld. D.R. vehemently submitted before us that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was erroneous and against the facts on the record. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly directed the AO to treat the interest income under the head business which was to be rightly taxed by the AO under head “Income from other sources” as…

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT RG 6(3)

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 212/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Dcit, Range 6(3) (Erstwhile Known As Room No. 576, Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 6(2) (Erstwhile Known As Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.) Marg, Nerolac House, G.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacg1376N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Arati Vissanji, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

…Factory was deleted by the Tribunal accepting the alternative contention of the assessee that the expenses incurred to protect the business assets should be allowed as deduction as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. 124 ITR 561. It was also held by the Tribunal that the assets of Kavesar Unit having already entered the block of assets of the assessee, depreciation thereon could not be disallowed on the ground of non- user as the use of block of assets was to be considered and not the use of individual assets. Respectfully following the orders of the coordinate bench of…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Karaikudi vs. ACIT, Karaikudi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3382/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.3382, 3383 & 3384/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2012-2013. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi. Madurai

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.3382, 3383 & 3384/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2012-2013. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi. Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, Advoca…

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sriram Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3640/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Dcit-14(3)(2), Vs. Sriram Asset Management 4Th 455, Floor, Co. Ltd. Aaykarbhavan Mumbai- C-2, G Block, Wockhardt 400020. Towers, Bkc, Mumbai-400051 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs7168N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओय से /Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar ननधाारयती की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri S.L. Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8 Mumbai, Dated 29.02.2016, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Only Grievance Of Revenue Relate To Deleting Allowance Of Administrative Expenditure By Holding That These Expenses Are Allowable As Business Expenditure.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(3)

…ities in AY 2014-15. In view of the above facts, there has been period of full in between but there is no discontinuation of business. I place reliance on the decision in the of KarsondasRanchhoddass vs. CIT 83 ITR (Bom); Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 561 (Bom). It is found that out of expenses of Rs.48,70,864/- claimed by the appellant being administrative expenses, the AO has allowed Rs.6,04,870/- and thereby making a disallowance out of the administrative expenses of Rs.41,65,994/-. In view of the findings delineated here-in-above, the AO is directed to allow the administrative expenses of RS.4…

M/S. Amin Manilal & Co., Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1303/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawanshi, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 57

…the expenses incurred by the appellant for maintaining its corporate structure, such as audit fees, directors remuneration, etc., should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the appellant. He relied on Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd vs CIT (124 ITR 561) and Preimus Investment. & Finance Ltd vs DCIT 122 DTR 106. Without prejudice to each of the earlier contentions, in any case, it is submitted that if for any reason, the said expenses incurred for maintaining corporate structure are not allowed as deduction while computing the profits of the business, the same should be allowed in earning income…

Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7983/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Ramlal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita./7983/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" & आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2917/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd. Dcit, -Circle -9 (3) 5, Trishala , 5Th Floor, 122, Sheikh M.St. 279, Aayakar Bhavan Zaveri Bazar Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaaca 4896 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri E. Shankaran-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri B.S. Sharma & Dalpat Shah-Ar

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Sharma and Dalpat Shah-ARFor Respondent: Shri E. Shankaran-DR
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ई ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं रामलाल नेगी, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ramlal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA./7983/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" & आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/2917/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Shirpur Gold Re…

M/S.Monarch Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawanshi, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 153CSection 57

…the expenses incurred by the appellant for maintaining its corporate structure, such as audit fees, directors remuneration, etc., should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the appellant. He relied on Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd vs CIT (124 ITR 561) and Preimus Investment. & Finance Ltd vs DCIT 122 DTR 106. Without prejudice to each of the earlier contentions, in any case, it is submitted that if for any reason, the said expenses incurred for maintaining corporate structure are not allowed as deduction while computing the profits of the business, the same should be allowed in earning income…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhor Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 4480/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Surabhi SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. S.C.Tiwari &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

…imit. The Ld. A.R. placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble high courts in L.VE. Variavan Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 (Madras), CIT vs. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd. (1981) 129ITR 58 (Allahabad), Hindustan Chemivals Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561(Bom), Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 0001 (SC), CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 0140(SC), CIT Vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 0161 (HC Bom at Goa) & CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Mody (1978) 115 ITR 519(SC) submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High courts in…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Investment Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1080/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 153A

…ts corporate structure, existence and preserving the assets-infrastructure. It was explained 129 ITR 58 Allahabad; Nokodar Bus Services Pvt. Ltd., 179 ITR 506 (Punj); Chennai & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 206 ITR 616 (Bom); Hindustan Chemicals Works Ltd. V. CIT, 124 ITR 561; Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT 64 ITR 568, 584 (cal.) and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 82 ITR 166. 2.1. The following details in respect of the expenses claimed were filed by way of a chart vide letter dated 15.11.2010:- Page 2 of 10 I.T.A .No.-1080/Del/2014 1. “The assessee company during the ye…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ae & E Chennai Works Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2177/CHNY/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Respondent: Shri. Ravi Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44B

…apply to the facts of the case. The appellant will be entitled to claim some depreciation and repairs and maintenance as claimed by it. This view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd v. CIT 124 ITR 561 (Bom). On the facts of that case it was found This was really a case where the company had completely gone out of its production, it had stopped production, it had decided to discontinue its business and either sell away the plant and machinery and buildings or, in the absence of proper purchasers being found, had decided to develop its real prop…