India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

60 ITR 52Supreme Court of India1966#350 most cited

What is India Cements Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT · 60 ITR 52 · Section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · expenses for obtaining loan · cost of raising finance · debenture discount · bank guarantee charges · stamp duty on loan · commercial expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 37Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 35dsection 135commercial expediencydisallowance of interest expendituresection 139(5)section 40a(2)(b)revenue expendituresection 92bsection 36(1)(iii)section 244acorporate guaranteeenduring benefit

Judgments citing India Cements Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hudco Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3904/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…392): "It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures or obtaining loan is revenue expenditure. Reference in this connection may be made to the leading judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). The question before us, however, is whether it is a debenture issue or an issue of share capital involving the strengthening of the capital base of the company. Though it prima facie appears that there are sufficient facts to indicate that what was contemplated was an issue of shares to the Mauritius company under the investor agreement which…

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3261/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

…392): "It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures or obtaining loan is revenue expenditure. Reference in this connection may be made to the leading judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). The question before us, however, is whether it is a debenture issue or an issue of share capital involving the strengthening of the capital base of the company. Though it prima facie appears that there are sufficient facts to indicate that what was contemplated was an issue of shares to the Mauritius company under the investor agreement which…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1137/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…tituted a capital asset. According to the CIT, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the CIT was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases where the act of borrowing was incidental to carrying on of business, the loan obtained was not an asset. That, for the purposes of deciding the claim of deduction under s. 10(2)(iii) of the IT Act, 1922 [s. 36(1)(iii) of the present IT Act), it was irrelevant to consider the purpose for which th…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…at all the expenses are to be treated as capital expenditure and the same were needed to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 and dismissed the plea of the assessee. 4.1 The assessee on being aggrieved by such order travelled to the CIT (Appeals), which considered this issue in detail. It noticed that the amount of Rs.60.13 crore had been waived under the CDR and interest had also been reduced for the financial year 2003-2004. The CIT (Appeals) on discussing various cases…

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…at all the expenses are to be treated as capital expenditure and the same were needed to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 and dismissed the plea of the assessee. 4.1 The assessee on being aggrieved by such order travelled to the CIT (Appeals), which considered this issue in detail. It noticed that the amount of Rs.60.13 crore had been waived under the CDR and interest had also been reduced for the financial year 2003-2004. The CIT (Appeals) on discussing various cases…

Paradise Infrastructure, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…ney to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the holding company would ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. 24 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT (b) India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) / S.F. Engineer Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 455 (Bom.) Interest payments – Purpose for which loan was required is irrelevant – In principle, apart from any statutory provisions, there is no distinction between interest in respect of a loan and an expenditure incurred for obtaining the loan. The nature of the expenditure incurred in raising a loan w…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 515/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

…the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profession. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that t…

JCIT(OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Fiance Comppany Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 514/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

…the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profession. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that t…

Cholamandalam Investment &Finance Company Limited, Parrys, Chennai vs. ACIT- Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

…the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profession. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that t…

M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

…the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profession. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that t…

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…erred in not relying on the following judicial precedents submitted by the Appellant and summarily rejecting the below stating the same were rendered in different facts: CIT v. Woodward Governor Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC) India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in treating the foreign exchange as capital in nature The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not appreciating the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Act, wherein all the costs incurred after the put to use of the asset are to be treated as revenue in nature The learned AO and the Hon'ble…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited and Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1235/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Concentrix Services India बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd Room No. 209, Aayakar Vs. (Formerly Known As Minacs Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pvt. Ltd, Minacs Limited Churchgate, Mumbai- & Aditya Birla Minacs 400020. Worldwide Limited) 9Th Floor, Symphony It Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1567A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken Shah Revenue By: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 30.01.2015 Passed By The Dcit- 10(2)(2), Mumbai For Ay. 2010-11, Pursuant To Direction Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Hereinafter “The Ld. Drp”) Dated 27.10.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Brought To Our Notice That This Appeal Of The Assessee Company For The Relevant Year I.E. Ay. 2010-11 Was Partly Allowed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 12.06.2023. & Thereafter, The Assessee Preferred A Miscellaneous Application (Ma)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 37

…of allowability of the claim made by assessee and relied on the following case laws: - i. Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363) (SC) ii. DCIT Vs. M/s. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co Limited (ITA. No.5059/Mum/2003) iii. India Cements Ltd Vs. CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC) 8. In the light of the above submissions, he pleaded that the additional ground may be admitted and allowed in favour of the assessee. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposes the admission of the additional ground and also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) for AY. 2011-12 to AY. 2013-…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dish Infra Services Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1599/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Sarin, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 68

…n that contention. The 5 Dish Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. circular in question, inter alia, says that expenditure incurred on the issue of debentures is an admissible deduction in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd.'s case [1966] 60 ITR 52. It is true that India Cements Ltd.'s case [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) did not directly deal with expenditure incurred on the issue of debentures. That was a case where the assessed had borrowed a loan and the question was whether the expenditure incurred on any such loan transaction was an admissible expenditure. The circular all the same extends the lo…

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…applicability, i.e., vis-à-vis their ratio, are PSIDC v. CIT [1997] 3 | P a g e Cochin Shipyard Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC); Brook Bond (I) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 798 (SC); CIT v. Tisco Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 285 (SC); India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). 3.4 The issue qua the second aspect flagged by the ld. Pr.CIT is the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment to s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Even as an amendment is, otherwise than where expressly so, or by necessary implication, to be regarded as prospective (CIT v. Vatia Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC)), most of the decisions…

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1121/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…ans. We notice that an identical expenses incurred on raising loans were disallowed in AY 2006-07 and 2007- 08 and the co-ordinate bench has deleted the disallowance by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd (60 ITR 52)(SC). The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 (supra) are extracted below:- “24. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee incurred following expenditure in relation to raising of loans: 1 Loan arrangement fee Rs. 47.69 milli…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…types of expenses, some of which are capital in nature, while some are revenue in nature. For example, expenses on issue of loan/debentures has been held to be an allowable revenue expense by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC). Similarly, discount/ premium on issue/redemption of debentures has been held to be allowable expense by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802) (SC) and other cases as mentioned above. Therefore, merely because an amount is not debited to P&L account, but it is debited to securities pr…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…types of expenses, some of which are capital in nature, while some are revenue in nature. For example, expenses on issue of loan/debentures has been held to be an allowable revenue expense by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC). Similarly, discount/ premium on issue/redemption of debentures has been held to be allowable expense by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802) (SC) and other cases as mentioned above. Therefore, merely because an amount is not debited to P&L account, but it is debited to securities pr…

M/S Cholamandalam Investment 7 Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 846/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cholamandalam Investment & Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Company Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Dare House, Nsc Bose Road, Company Circle-1(3), Parrys, Chennai – 600 001 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajit Kumar, Ca & Shri. Kunal Shah, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar, CA and Shri. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

…the same has been claimed as deduction in the year of payment, and in this regard he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT [2015] 372 ITR 605 and its decision in the case of Indian Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52. 9. The ld. DR, Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, there cannot be different treatment for any expenditure, i.e., one for the purpose of book and one for the purpose of computation of profits and gains from business and profession. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cosmo Films Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 5040/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 10BSection 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5038/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2004-05] ITA No. 5039/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 5040/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2006-07] ITA No. 2844/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] ITA No. 6504/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s Cosmo Films Ltd Circle - 3(1) 1008, DLF Tower A New Delhi Jasola District Centre New Delhi PAN: AAACC 1152 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR Shri Vivek Kum…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cosmo Films Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 5039/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 10BSection 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5038/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2004-05] ITA No. 5039/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2005-06] ITA No. 5040/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2006-07] ITA No. 2844/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2007-08] ITA No. 6504/DEL/2013 [A.Y. 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s Cosmo Films Ltd Circle - 3(1) 1008, DLF Tower A New Delhi Jasola District Centre New Delhi PAN: AAACC 1152 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR Shri Vivek Kum…