Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

252 ITR 577High Court2001#7570 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

BHARAT GEARS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

ITA 6933/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 43B

…case for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-00 order dated 21.07.2006, copy available at pages 12 to 26 of the paper book. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Neyelli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 388 ITR 172. 12. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently relied upon the Tribunal order passed in assessee’s own case in AY 1994-95 confirmed by Hon’ble High Court and 7 ITA No.315/Del./2017 ITA No.6933/Del./2017 further contended that by overhauling the machine, new as…

M/S BHARAT GEARS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 315/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 43B

…case for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1999-00 order dated 21.07.2006, copy available at pages 12 to 26 of the paper book. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Neyelli Lignite Corporation Ltd. 388 ITR 172. 12. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, ld. DR for the Revenue vehemently relied upon the Tribunal order passed in assessee’s own case in AY 1994-95 confirmed by Hon’ble High Court and 7 ITA No.315/Del./2017 ITA No.6933/Del./2017 further contended that by overhauling the machine, new as…

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

ITA 2149/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jan 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh PatelFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 31

…penditure should be treated as revenue and in this connection he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Elgi 3 Equipments Ltd. vs. JCIT, 120 taxmann.com 142 and in the case of CIT vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 388 ITR 172 and also on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Midas Rubber (P.) Ltd., 43 taxmann.com 112. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. CIT-DR placed reliance on the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to whether the expend…

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 469/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…n to capital assets of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed as revenue deduction and not be treated as a capital expenditure. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements. a) Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 577 (Guj) b) CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad) c) CIT Vs. MAC Chares (India) Ltd. (2015) 233 Taxman 177 (Kar) 22. At the time of hearing, the bench wanted to see the details of expenditure incurred and in reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the details are available on page no. 912 of paper book for Asses…

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 335/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…n to capital assets of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed as revenue deduction and not be treated as a capital expenditure. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements. a) Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 577 (Guj) b) CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad) c) CIT Vs. MAC Chares (India) Ltd. (2015) 233 Taxman 177 (Kar) 22. At the time of hearing, the bench wanted to see the details of expenditure incurred and in reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the details are available on page no. 912 of paper book for Asses…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 686/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…n to capital assets of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed as revenue deduction and not be treated as a capital expenditure. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements. a) Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 577 (Guj) b) CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad) c) CIT Vs. MAC Chares (India) Ltd. (2015) 233 Taxman 177 (Kar) 22. At the time of hearing, the bench wanted to see the details of expenditure incurred and in reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the details are available on page no. 912 of paper book for Asses…

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 604/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…n to capital assets of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed as revenue deduction and not be treated as a capital expenditure. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements. a) Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 577 (Guj) b) CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad) c) CIT Vs. MAC Chares (India) Ltd. (2015) 233 Taxman 177 (Kar) 22. At the time of hearing, the bench wanted to see the details of expenditure incurred and in reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the details are available on page no. 912 of paper book for Asses…

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1339/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…n to capital assets of the assessee and therefore, the same should be allowed as revenue deduction and not be treated as a capital expenditure. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements. a) Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 577 (Guj) b) CIT Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 172 (Mad) c) CIT Vs. MAC Chares (India) Ltd. (2015) 233 Taxman 177 (Kar) 22. At the time of hearing, the bench wanted to see the details of expenditure incurred and in reply it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the details are available on page no. 912 of paper book for Asses…

M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

ITA 5286/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…nditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of enduring benefit, what is material is to consider the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5249/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…nditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of enduring benefit, what is material is to consider the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5248/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…nditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of enduring benefit, what is material is to consider the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5247/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…nditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of enduring benefit, what is material is to consider the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling…

ACIT, NOIDA vs. M/S NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD.,, NOIDA

ITA 5246/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri B.P. Jain

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-D.R
Section 32

…nditure is incurred in the field of fixed capital, but is on capital account but if it is in the field of circulating capital, it is on revenue account. In the case of Indian Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. Vs. c/T (2002) reported at 25 STC 503 (Guj HC): (2001) 252 ITR 577 (Guj.) it was held that in relation to the test of enduring benefit, what is material is to consider the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling…

ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STOLL BERG INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 310/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri K.Narsimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2006-07 Income Tax Officer, M/s Stoll Berg India Pvt. बनाम / Ward-11(1), P7 Ltd., 2, St. Georges Gate V/s. Road, 6th Floor, Hastings, Chowringhee Square, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700 022 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAFCS 0189 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arup Chatterjee, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ashim Kumar Sinha, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-09-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 19-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Da…

EUREKA FORBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T RANGE - 12,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Abhijit Biswas &For Respondent: Shri Sital Chandra Das, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed 2 facilitate its business. In support of its claim, the assessee has relied on the orders of the Kolkata Tribunal in it’s own case for the A.Y. 1992-93, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 252 ITR 577 (Guj) and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. A.M Singhvi reported in 212 CTR 1(Raj). After considering the above, the CIT-A opined, that the expenditure incurred towards renovation of office premises is capital in nature as it increased the value of asset and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is i…

Indian Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. CIT (252 ITR 577) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax