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

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpon.Ltd., Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 633/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R
Section 143(3)

…nual recurring expenditure incurred by the assessee. Guarantee fee was payable to Govt. of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by the assessee and guaranteed by the Govt. of Gujarat. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd., 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefits. Guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put-to-use till the end of previous year…

DCIT RG 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 419/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 419/Mum/2010 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2006-07) The Dy. Commissioner Of Maharashtra State Electricity Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Transmission Co. Ltd. Room No. 455, Aayakar Plot No. C-19, E-Block, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Prakashganga, Anant Kanekar Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Station Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaecm2936N अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemalatha, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2019

For Appellant: Ms. N. Hemalatha, DRFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, AR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…issue expenses included the expenditure towards payment of stamp duty, payment made to credit rating agencies, underwriters, managers and bankers to the issue. While relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52 and circular no. 56 dated 19.3.1971 issued by the CBDT, it was contended that expenditure is revenue in nature. Inter alia, the assessee relied upon decisions in CIT Vs. East India Hotels, 252 ITR 860 (Cal); CIT Vs. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd., 250 ITR 84 (Bom),Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. CIT 80 ITR 415 (Bom); CIT Vs. OL: 218 CTR 165 (Guj);…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Orbis Power Venture Pvt. Ltd., (Since Merged With India Power Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1037/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.K. Nayak, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ruchira Lakhatia, ACA
Section 143(2)

…that the processing fees is a revenue expenditure allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Further, since it is incurred for the purpose of business, it is allowable. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 60 ITR 52(SC). 3. Since the loan has been utilized for purchase of shares of subsidiary company engaged in the similar line of business, incidental expenses on the loan is revenue expenditure allowable as deduction u/s 37(1). Further, no separate discussion is required to be made on this issue, since the interest expenses on the said loan has already been co…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3505/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(3)

…. The said charges paid are of the revenue in nature and are allowable business expenditure. In support of the above, the assessee relies on the following case laws including decisions of the Supreme Court. India Cement Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 60 ITR 52(SC). DCIT versus Paramount Hotel Ltd. 76 ITD 25 ITAT Mumbai (SMC). But the AO has not accepted the claim of assessee and disallowed the claim of expenses of finance expenses of Rs. 40,63,250/-. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO vide para 5.1 and 5.2 as under: - “5.1 Admittedly, the assessee…

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, 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 section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income- tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider th…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…asset. According to the Commissioner, since the loan was raised for securing capital asset, the interest incurred thereon constituted part of capital expenditure. This finding of the Commissioner was erroneous. In the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, 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 section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 [section 36(1)(iii) of the present Income- tax Act], it was irrelevant to consider th…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal I.T

ITA 3437/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Rita Dokania, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…recurring expenditure incurred by the appellant. Guarantee fees was payable to Government of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by appellant and guaranteed by Government of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefit. Guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put to use till the end of previous y…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal I.T

ITA 3358/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Rita Dokania, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…recurring expenditure incurred by the appellant. Guarantee fees was payable to Government of Gujarat every year in respect of loans taken by appellant and guaranteed by Government of Gujarat. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. 60 ITR 52 (SC), loan cannot be treated as asset or advantage resulting in enduring benefit. Guarantee fees paid to Government of Gujarat was in connection with raising of loans and enduring benefit or advantage could not be said to have resulted by taking such loans. Only if the assets acquired out of such loans were not put to use till the end of previous y…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5710/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblequippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Vs The Additional D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Commissioner Of Income Saket Place Tax, New Delhi Aaacq1278P Range-14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Quippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Circle-14(1) D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern New Delhi Park, Saket Place New Delhi Aaacq1278P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…ear, the provision of Section 43A is not applicable. The assessee has claimed such foreign exchange loss as an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of India Cements Limited vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) wherein it was held that the nature of expenditure being capital or revenue does not depend on the purpose for which foreign currency loan was obtained or on nature of ultimate utilization of loan amount. Further, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. (2009)…

M/S. Quippo Oil & Gas Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5634/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblequippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Vs The Additional D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Commissioner Of Income Saket Place Tax, New Delhi Aaacq1278P Range-14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Quippo Oil & Gas Infra Ltd. Circle-14(1) D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern New Delhi Park, Saket Place New Delhi Aaacq1278P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…ear, the provision of Section 43A is not applicable. The assessee has claimed such foreign exchange loss as an allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of India Cements Limited vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) wherein it was held that the nature of expenditure being capital or revenue does not depend on the purpose for which foreign currency loan was obtained or on nature of ultimate utilization of loan amount. Further, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. (2009)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…lowed by the Assessing Officer has not been incurred by the assessee lor earning the exempted income. d) In any case, interest on borrowed capital is allowable as deduction u/s 36(1 )(iii) and expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. India Cement Ltd. vs CIT (1986) (60 ITR 52) (SC Deputy CIT vs Core Healthcare Ltd. (2008) (298 ITR I94)(SC) e) In CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2010) (326 ITR 01) Supreme Court have held that the mandate of section 14A is clear It desires to curb the practice to claim deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income against taxable income. Distinction has to b…

Yamir Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle - 8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 534/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.534/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Yamir Packaging P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cir.8 11, Yes House Ahmedabad. Shivalik Plaza Opp: Ama, Iim Road Polytechnic, Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan Aaacy 0728 N.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…e assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that such expenses eligible under section 37 of the Act being 1/5th , was denied to the assessee. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52 (SC). On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A). 10. We have perused record carefully. On page no.65 of the paper book, the assessee has placed on record details of such expenditure. These preliminary expenses were claimed in schedule no.16. In schedule no.16, there are no details except total amount and 1/5th written off…

Kumar Wire Cloth Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Raigad vs. ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6284/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kumar Wire Cloth Ito Ward - 5(2)(2) Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Mumbai. D-23, Midc, Taloja, Tal-Panvel, Vs. District-Raigad, 410218. Pan: Aaack1716E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrasekhar (Ar) Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrasekhar (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…and the same is not taxable as revenue receipt. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision Bombay High Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs CIT 261 ITR 501(Bom), Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Cement Ltd Vs CIT(1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC), Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Tosha International Ltd (2009) 176 Taxman 187 (Delhi), Accelerated Freez & Drying Co Ltd Vs DCIT (2009) 31 SOT 442( Cochin) and Tribunal in CIT vs. King Prawans Ltd. 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 13. We have considered the rival submission of the partie…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Bharat Hotels Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/271/2005HC Delhi06 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 2(22)(e)Section 43BSection 45

…the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 2003. In respect of that provision, the law as it existed at ITA 271/2005 Page 8 of 8 the relevant time i.e. in A.Y. 2000-01, was governed by India Cements Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 60 ITR 52 which held that there can be no distinction between expenditure of one kind or the other, when it came to borrowed funds and the treatment of interest thereon. Consequently, this question of law has to be and is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 12. For the above reasons, save and except the partly relief granted in…

Systems America (India) Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 905/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…ble under section 37(1) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- i. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virat Investment and Merchantile Co. [2017] 392 ITR 202(Delhi) ii. India Cements Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1966] 60 ITR 52, 1966 AIR 1053, 1966(2) SCR 944 27. As regards to the remaining expenses of Rs. 61,09,974/-, it was stated that those expenses were related to public issue therefore, the assessee rightly claimed one fifth of the expenditure to be allowed under the provisions of section 35D of the Act. It was further stated that incurring of expenses was not in di…

ACIT, Circle-7(1) vs. System America India Ltd

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1492/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 195Section 234BSection 250Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 80

…ble under section 37(1) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- i. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virat Investment and Merchantile Co. [2017] 392 ITR 202(Delhi) ii. India Cements Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1966] 60 ITR 52, 1966 AIR 1053, 1966(2) SCR 944 27. As regards to the remaining expenses of Rs. 61,09,974/-, it was stated that those expenses were related to public issue therefore, the assessee rightly claimed one fifth of the expenditure to be allowed under the provisions of section 35D of the Act. It was further stated that incurring of expenses was not in di…

M/S Country Club India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1714/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmancountry Club Hospitality & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Holidays Ltd (Formerly Tax, Circle 3 (2) Known As Country Club Hyderabad India Ltd) Hyderabad Pan: Aaacc8276B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…and therefore, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Thus, according to him, the findings of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are erroneous. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention. 1. India Cements Ltd., vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Tumus Electric Corpn. Ltd., (1990) 49 Taxman 249 (MP) (HC) 3. CIT vs. East India Hotels Ltd., (2001) 119 Taxman 235 (Cal.) 4. CIT vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd., (2007) 164 Taxman 249 (Mad.) 5. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 67 (Mad.) 6. CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd., 321 ITR 611 7. CIT vs. ITC Hotels L…

Dy.CIT, Cir-1(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Cuntry Club (I) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1735/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…and therefore, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Thus, according to him, the findings of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are erroneous. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention. 1. India Cements Ltd., vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Tumus Electric Corpn. Ltd., (1990) 49 Taxman 249 (MP) (HC) 3. CIT vs. East India Hotels Ltd., (2001) 119 Taxman 235 (Cal.) 4. CIT vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd., (2007) 164 Taxman 249 (Mad.) 5. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 67 (Mad.) 6. CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd., 321 ITR 611 7. CIT vs. ITC Ho…

M/S. Country Club India Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee on this issue are allowed

ITA 1689/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Country Club Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle-1(2), Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Hyderabad. (Formerly Known As Country Club India Ltd.,) Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy
Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…and therefore, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Thus, according to him, the findings of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are erroneous. He placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention. 1. India Cements Ltd., vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Tumus Electric Corpn. Ltd., (1990) 49 Taxman 249 (MP) (HC) 3. CIT vs. East India Hotels Ltd., (2001) 119 Taxman 235 (Cal.) 4. CIT vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd., (2007) 164 Taxman 249 (Mad.) 5. CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd., (2008) 304 ITR 67 (Mad.) 6. CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd., 321 ITR 611 7. CIT vs. ITC Ho…