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 367,154 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

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…n nature. The Ld.AR submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd v. CIT Page 36 of 46 ITA Nos. 1705, 1622, 1599, 1600, 1741 to 1744/Bang/2017, C.O. Nos. 111 to 114/Bang/2017, ITA Nos. 1643/Bang/2019 & 495/Bang/2020 reported in (1966) 60 ITR 52 held that, the nature of expenditure incurred in raising a loan does not depend on the nature and purpose of the loan. Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the expenditure incurred by the assessee therein on stamp duty, registration fees etc., for raising loan was in the nature of revenue expense to be allowed in the year of raising the loan. 8.6…

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…d reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Core Healthcare Limited [2008] 167 Taxman 206 (SC) and for the alternate claim of deduction u/s.37(1), he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Limited. [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). 76. In a rebuttal to the finding of the CIT(A) that the loan is taken for capital purpose and to be treated as capital asset, the ld AR submitted that the assessee completed the construction of aviation fuel facility in April 2008 and facility was put to use on 24 May 2008 and therefore, interest on swap paid in the previous year relevant to…

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…d reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Core Healthcare Limited [2008] 167 Taxman 206 (SC) and for the alternate claim of deduction u/s.37(1), he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Limited. [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). 76. In a rebuttal to the finding of the CIT(A) that the loan is taken for capital purpose and to be treated as capital asset, the ld AR submitted that the assessee completed the construction of aviation fuel facility in April 2008 and facility was put to use on 24 May 2008 and therefore, interest on swap paid in the previous year relevant to…

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…d reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Core Healthcare Limited [2008] 167 Taxman 206 (SC) and for the alternate claim of deduction u/s.37(1), he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Limited. [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC). 76. In a rebuttal to the finding of the CIT(A) that the loan is taken for capital purpose and to be treated as capital asset, the ld AR submitted that the assessee completed the construction of aviation fuel facility in April 2008 and facility was put to use on 24 May 2008 and therefore, interest on swap paid in the previous year relevant to…

DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Shriram Investments, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2232/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A

…o far as first three questions are concerned, in our opinion, a co-ordinate Bench of this court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Inds.Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom.), had addressed itself to this issue. Reliance was placed on India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) which was under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Income-Tax Act,1922 which corresponds to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the present Act. This Court answered the issue in the following manner (page 581) : 'That, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 12 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, the nature of the expense-whether the expense was on capital…

63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Known As Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cent. Cir. - 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A.KariaFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) ITA Nos.4775 & 4776/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 10-11) 63 Moon Technologies Limited DCIT, CC-8(3) (formerly Financial Technologies Room No.659, Aaykar Bhawan (India) Limited) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 021 FT Tower, CTS No.256-257, Vs. Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACF5737C (Assessee) (Revenue) : Assessee by : Shri Chetan A.Karia Revenue by : Shri Vatsalya Saxena Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16 .12.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya(A.M.).: The…

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…issue expenses were capitalised in the books of account. However, in the return of income, the same were claimed as business expenditure relying on the decisions in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd v. CIT (80 ITR 415) (Bom) and India Cement Limited Vs CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC). During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer rejected claim of the Assessee following its own order for AY 98-99. Detailed discussion in this regard is in para 14 on page 9 and 10 of the assessment. on appeal the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of the Assessee following his own order for AY 1998-99, AY 2000-01 and AY 2001-02. The Ld.C…

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

…eet the working capital requirement of the assessee and, therefore, the expenditure was considered to be a revenue expenditure. In view of the said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, would squarely apply. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the above refrained question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” 27. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in M/s Haryana Jewellers Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA No. 2315/Del/2018, dated 10.09.2018 wh…

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 6649/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

…eet the working capital requirement of the assessee and, therefore, the expenditure was considered to be a revenue expenditure. In view of the said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, would squarely apply. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the above refrained question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” 27. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in M/s Haryana Jewellers Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA No. 2315/Del/2018, dated 10.09.2018 wh…

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Software Communicatin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena
Section 115JSection 14A

…ssessee submitted that debenture issue expenses are incurred for raising debt for the company and not capital and hence, allowable deduction. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India Cement v/s CIT, [1966] 60 ITR 52 (sc) and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v/s Secure Meters Ltd., [2008] 175 Taxman 567 (Raj.). He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1979] 82 ITR 363 (SC) for the proposition that deduction cannot be denied merely because expenses were not debited to Profit…

Addl CIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the revenue qua the aforesaid issue in question, the Ground of appeal no. 5 is dismissed

ITA 6834/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit -10(1), M/S Maharashtra State 455, 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg Vs. Transmission Company Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakash Gad, Mumbai – 400 020 Anant Kanekar Marg, Stn. Road, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 51 Pan No. Aaecm2936N (Revenue) (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…had not resulted to creation of any capital asset of an enduring nature, thus were allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the stamp duty, registration fees, lawyers fees etc. paid for obtaining a loan is allowable as a business expenditure. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who in our considered view had rightly vacated the disallowance of Rs.92,83,326/-, we uphold his order…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Elgen (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Elgen (India) Pvt Ltd., Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 8520C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri M. Poorna Chander Rao Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri M. Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)

…. In regard to the Madras High Court's decision Shri Vaish submitted that the High Court did not consider the Supreme Court's decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case (supra) and another Supreme Court decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 . According to Shri Vaish in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd.'s case (supra) the purpose for which money was borrowed was not relevant even when the context in that case related to pre-setting up period and therefore the Madras High Court could not look into the purpose of borrowings to conclude in that case that inte…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Maharshtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

ITA 1649/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 69

…nses incurred by the assessee during the course of business for the reason that on account of these loans no capital asset has been created by incurring such expenditure. We noted that even Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 SC held that the stamp duty, registration fee, lawyers fee etc., paid for obtaining loan was eligible for business expenditure. We noted that the aforesaid amounts were reflected in the schedule 12 of the balance sheet in the Revenue‟s account as interest and finance charges. Also the assessee has suo moto capitalize the expenses which were to be c…

M/S. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.02.2021
Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…d in sec 36(1(iii) with effect from 01.04.2004 has to be read prospectively or not Thus his decision has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case. 12.2 Assessees reliance on the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd vs CIT I 960 60 ITR 52(SC) also does not come to the rescue. This decision is on allowability of expenditure on stamps registration fee etc incurred for availing loan. The Apex Court held that the expenditure incurred in raising a Joan is revenue expenditure The facts and the legal matrix of the assessees case are totally different Iron, the facts of the Apex Court decis…

Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-4 vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd

ITA/168/2019HC Karnataka26 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260Section 73

…and the appellate authority has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority, against which an appeal was preferred before the ITAT and the ITAT taking into account the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of INDIA CEMENTS VS CIT (60 ITR 52), has upheld the decision of the CITA and has dismissed the appeal of the revenue and the revenue is before this Court in the present appeal. 3. This Court has admitted the present appeal on the following substantial question of law. “whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal is right in law in…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co Ltd

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/388/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

…uced from Rs.7,97,79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e A…

Coffeeday Global Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/315/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

…uced from Rs.7,97,79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e A…

Coffeeday Global Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders dated 21

ITA/313/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

…uced from Rs.7,97,79,326/- to Rs.5,05,06,362/- by reducing the interest rate from 12@ to 7.6%. (iv) the disallowance of processing charges of Rs.9,77,23,650/- was deleted in view of the decision of 10 the Supreme Court in INDIA CEMENTS VS. CIT [(19660 60 ITR 52(SC)]. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee as well as the revenue filed theappeals before the tribunal The tribunal by an order dated 21.06.2017 partly allowed theappeal preferred by the assessee and revenue and held as under: (i) claim for disallowance under Section 14A of ht e A…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

ITA/340/2014HC Karnataka18 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 35DSection 80J

…ing, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus" 10. The expression 'in connection with issue for public subscription of shares in or debentures of the company' is an expression of wide import. The Supreme Court in 'INDIA CEMENTS LTD. Vs. CIT' 60 ITR 52 has held that expenditure on account of stamp duty even after introduction of 35D, is an admissible expenditure in connection with issue of public subscription. The aforesaid decision was relied upon by High Court of Bombay in MAHINDRA UGINE AND STEEL CO. LTD, supra, and it was held that the aforesaid expression would improve stamp duty paya…

M/S Infra Dredge Service Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cirlce (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

…assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52. In this case the assessee obtained certain loan which was secured by a charge on the fixed assets of the company. It incurred expenditure like legal fees, registration fees, stamps etc. and claimed that it was a business expenditure. Revenue disallowed the same on the ground that the impugned expenditure was incurred in obtaining capital. On a…