Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT

175 ITR 220High Court1989#4807 most cited

What is Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure on constructing a road on government land, though conferring an enduring advantage to facilitate business operations efficiently and profitably, is not capital in nature if it does not result in acquiring a tangible or intangible asset for the assessee.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT · expenditure on road · business expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring advantage · tangible asset · intangible asset · section 37(1)

Also reported as

40 Taxmann 43

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 115JBSection 135Section 1922

Issues it is cited on

section 35esection 10(5)section 92eresulting companysection 92basection 288tax collected at sourcesection 135section 244demergercsr expendituresection 199

Judgments citing Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

ITA 459/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangibl…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

ITA 458/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangibl…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

ITA 457/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangibl…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 463/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 462/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 461/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 460/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangibl…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 455/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 454/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

DCIT, Circle 6, Jaipur, Ncrb, Jpr vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan Jaipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 453/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

DCIT, Circle-6 Jaipur, Ncrb, Jaipur vs. Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar Jpr

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

ITA 452/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 94E

…d for facilitation of routine operations and smooth functioning of transport system. These roads had been constructed on the Government land. No new asset had been acquired by the assessee. It was held in the case of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 /[1988] 40 Taxman 43 (Kar.) that the construction of the road which was not the property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangib…

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co Pvt Ltd (Successor of Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corp RG 6 Chennai, New Building, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.677 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35D

…wed. 4.3.2 The appellant has cited the following case laws in support of the allowability of the said expense as a revenue expense:- i. CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. [1981] 130 |TR 385 (Mad.) ii. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No.3) v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 (Kar) Perusal of these orders show that both these orders pertain to allowability of ‘ROC filing fees' which the appellant himself has disallowed in the present case and not an issue in dispute and hence, are not relevant for the present appeal. ITA No.677 & 675/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: 4.3.3 The issue of allowability/disallowability of such expenditu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 675/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.677 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35D

…wed. 4.3.2 The appellant has cited the following case laws in support of the allowability of the said expense as a revenue expense:- i. CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. [1981] 130 |TR 385 (Mad.) ii. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No.3) v. CIT [1989] 175 ITR 220 (Kar) Perusal of these orders show that both these orders pertain to allowability of ‘ROC filing fees' which the appellant himself has disallowed in the present case and not an issue in dispute and hence, are not relevant for the present appeal. :- 4 -: 4.3.3 The issue of allowability/disallowability of such expenditure as revenue expenditure ha…

Miraclee Reclaim Rubber Coimbatore (P) Ltd., Palakkad vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 519/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

…filing fee for enhancement of authorized share capital of the Assessee company is allowable as revenue expenditure in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case Hindustan Machine Tools Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1989] 175 ITR 220 (Kar). Hence, according to us, on this issue also, the revision order requires to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 12. Thus, we quash the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the Assessee. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:519/CHNY/2021 is allowed. 13. I.T.A No.:518/CHNY/2021:…

Miracle Olymers India Ltd, Palakkad vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 518/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B. Mohan, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

…filing fee for enhancement of authorized share capital of the Assessee company is allowable as revenue expenditure in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case Hindustan Machine Tools Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1989] 175 ITR 220 (Kar). Hence, according to us, on this issue also, the revision order requires to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 12. Thus, we quash the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the Assessee. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:519/CHNY/2021 is allowed. 13. I.T.A No.:518/CHNY/2021:…

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

…ure. 13. The cases involving road-building and expenditure incurred in connection therewith are numerous and the decisions are not quit uniform in all those cases, as is clear from the decision of this court in Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) case [1989] 175 ITR 220, which will be referred to again. In CIT v. India Tobacco Co. Ltd. , the Calcutta High Court had to consider as to whether the contribution made by the assessee for the hospital taken over by the State Government under an agreement between the workmen's union, the State Government and the assessee was a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditur…

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

…ure. 13. The cases involving road-building and expenditure incurred in connection therewith are numerous and the decisions are not quit uniform in all those cases, as is clear from the decision of this court in Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) case [1989] 175 ITR 220, which will be referred to again. In CIT v. India Tobacco Co. Ltd. , the Calcutta High Court had to consider as to whether the contribution made by the assessee for the hospital taken over by the State Government under an agreement between the workmen's union, the State Government and the assessee was a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditur…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…s of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Patiala. (Tax Reference No. 1 of 1990 decided on December 4, 1996). In that case, the question un…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…s of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Patiala. (Tax Reference No. 1 of 1990 decided on December 4, 1996). In that case, the question un…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…s of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Patiala. (Tax Reference No. 1 of 1990 decided on December 4, 1996). In that case, the question un…

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. CIT (175 ITR 220) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax