Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v. CIT

333 ITR 18High Court2011#2809 most cited

What is Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred on a business project that fails to materialize or is abandoned due to reasons not attributable to the assessee is treated as revenue expenditure and is deductible.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v. CIT · 333 ITR 18 · Section 37(1) · Section 36(1)(iii) · abandoned project expenditure · failed project · revenue expenditure deduction · capital work in progress write-off · pre-commencement expenses · Section 115JB

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 143(1)Section 28Section 115JBSection 144C(13)Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

capital expenditurerevenue expendituresection 36(1)section 37section 37(1)section 36transfercompanyindiabusinessinterestsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v. CIT

Aditya Birla Power Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 1115/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1115/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Assistant Commissioner Of C-1, Aditya Birla Centre Income Tax -8(1) बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcb-7067-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.Dr Assessee By : Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.Ar’S सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar & Hardik Nirmal, Ld.AR’sFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…ture of expenditure for the reasons not attributable to the assessee, when the existing unit ought to be closed. 14. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:— (i) Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 18/[2009] 185 Taxman 277 (Delhi) (ii) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 380 ITR 116/[2015] 233 Taxman 340/60 taxmann.com 384 (Cal.) (iii) CIT v. Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. [2012] 211 Taxman 257/26 taxmann.com 15 (Jharkhand) (iv) Asia Power Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 370 ITR 257/[2014] 49 taxmann.com 428/226 Taxman 136 (Mag.) (Kar.), and (v) Thi…

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)Section 92C

…aken by it in 19 normal course of business and, therefore, same was to be allowed as business expenditure. 29. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills, 176 Taxm 157 (P&H). (ii) Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd., 333 ITR 18 (Del.). (iii) Jay Engineering Works Ltd., [2008] 166 taxman 115 (Del.). (iv) CIT vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd., 332 ITR 594 (Del.). (v) CIT vs. Euro India Ltd., [2014] 223 Taxman 97 (Del.). (vi) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 159 ITR 673 (Cal.). (vii) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.). (viii) CIT vs. Graphite India Ltd., 221 ITR…

M/S. Keihin Panalfa Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1790/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…s been incurred during the normal course of business and hence should be allowed as revenue loss u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 1 reported in (2011) 333 ITR 18 (Delhi HC) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court held that when project was abandoned and no new asset came into existence, the various expenditure incurred on such projects cannot be treated as capital expenditure but allowable as revenue expenditure. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the ca…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Keihin Panalfa Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Department stands partly

ITA 1201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR, Smt. Namita Panday, Sr. DR
Section 40A(2)(b)

…s been incurred during the normal course of business and hence should be allowed as revenue loss u/s 37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 1 reported in (2011) 333 ITR 18 (Delhi HC) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court held that when project was abandoned and no new asset came into existence, the various expenditure incurred on such projects cannot be treated as capital expenditure but allowable as revenue expenditure. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the ca…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed,

ITA 3465/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Rallis India Ltd. Cit -3, Mumbai बनाम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit -3(3)(1), Mumbai M/S Rallis India Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 156/157, Nariman Bhawan, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 15Th Floor, 227, Nariman Mumbai – 400 020. Point, Mumbai – 400 021. (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcr 2657 N

Section 28

…e existing business and its efficiency and, profitability not removed from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directe…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4316/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…itability not removed 20 I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directe…

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4234/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4234/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S Rallis India Ltd, Addl.Commissioner Of Income 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, Tax-Circle 3(3), फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rallis India Ltd, Circle 3(3), 156/157 Nariman Bhavan, फनाभ/ Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001 Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Pan: Aabcr2657N अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji & Darshit Naik प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Purishottam Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 9.8.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 8.11.2017

For Appellant: S/Shri Jitendra Jain, H.Jemshethji and Darshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri Purishottam Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 80I

…itability not removed 20 I.T.A. No.4316/Mum/2014 and 4234/Mum/2014 from area of the day-to-day business of the assessee's established enterprise." In view of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd, V/s CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT v. Praga Tool Ltd (157 ITR 282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242 ITR 317) (Mad)‟ CIT V/s JCT Electronics Ltd (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT V/s Abbott Laboratories (I) P Ltd (202 ITR 819) Bom; EL Forge Ltd V.s DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT V/s Carborandum Universal Ltd (2008) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the AO is directe…

Alpha Toyo Limited, Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3331/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…n nature. Besides above the assessee company had brought forward unabsorbed losses of Rs.5.4 crore. The written off was not done to save tax. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetic India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 333 ITR 18. As relates to Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is not pressed. As relates to Additional Ground No. 3, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee himself has disallowed Rs.7,66,940/- therefore the disallowance by the A.O, should have been reduced in respect of this amount. 7. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer…

Alpha Toyo Limited, Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3330/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…n nature. Besides above the assessee company had brought forward unabsorbed losses of Rs.5.4 crore. The written off was not done to save tax. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Indo Rama Synthetic India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 333 ITR 18. As relates to Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is not pressed. As relates to Additional Ground No. 3, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee himself has disallowed Rs.7,66,940/- therefore the disallowance by the A.O, should have been reduced in respect of this amount. 7. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer…

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Trigent Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3629/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan,5Th Floor 201, Vastushilp Annex, 11 Floor Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Above Hdfc Bank, Gamadia Colony Rd. Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aabct 2852 P Co.Sno./13&14/Mum/2017 वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 ) (Arising Out Of आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ Ita No.3629/Mum/2015&7668/Mum/13: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Trigent Software Ltd. Dcit-5(3)(2) Tardeo, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Revenue By: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-Dr Assessee By: D.V. Lakhani-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M. लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 22.10.2013 & 31.03.2015 Of The Cit(A),The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assesse Have Filed Appeals/Cross Objections For The Above Mentioned Two Years. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Software.

For Appellant: D.V. Lakhani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 30Section 37

…ssees existing business line. He referred to the case of IL & FS Education and Technology Services Private Ltd. (ITA/765/Mum/2009,AY.2004-05, dated 10/04/2013)and to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indoram Synthetics India Private Ltd.(333 ITR 18)and held that facts of the case under consideration were identical to the above referred two cases, that in those cases the assessee had abandoned a new project linked with their existing businesses, that the expenditure,shown under the head capital work in progress in the earlier years, was allowed as a deduction in the year when the project in q…

DDIT, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidy. Director Of Income Tax, Bg Exploration & Production India International Taxation, Ltd, Dehradun Bg House, Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Swain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92

…ch was subsequently abandoned are allowable as deduction: DDIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA no 2227/Del/2014 & CO 13/Del/2015 A Y 2009-10 i) CIT vs. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills : 176 Taxman 157 (P&H) ii) Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd.: 333 ITR 18 (Del.) iii) CIT v. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd.: 332 ITR 594 (Del.) iv) CIT v. Euro India Ltd.: [2014] 223 Taxman 97 (Del.) v) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT: 159 ITR 673 (Cal.) vi) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.) vii) CIT vs. Graphite India Ltd.: 221 ITR 420 (Cal.) viii) Binani Cement Ltd. v. CIT: 277 CTR 49 (Cal.) ix) DCIT v. Gu…

M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT Spl. RG. - 2, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7148/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 1998-1999
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri-Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,, "याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA/6214/M/2003: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1997-98 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

Tata Motors Ltd vs. DCIT RG - 2(1)

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6214/MUM/2003[1997 - 98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri-Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,, "याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA/6214/M/2003: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1997-98 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1724/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Rallies India Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1), Room No-609, 6Th Floor 156/157, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Bhavan,Nariman Point Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 Pan Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Anu K. Agarwal, Addl.Cit Revenue By Assessee By .. Shri Harmuzt Tamshedji, Ar .. Date Of Hearing 15-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 10(34)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…isting business and its efficiency and, profitability not removed from the area of the day-to-day business of the assessee’s established enterprise.” In View of the above decision and the ratio laid down in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. vs. CIT (333 ITR 18) (Delhi); CIT V. Praga Tools Ltd. (157 IT R282) (AP); CIT vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (242)ITR 317) (Mad); CIT v. JCT Electronics Ltd. (P&H) (ITA 676 of 2009); CIT v. Abbott Laboratories (I) P. Ltd. (202 ITR 819) (Born); EL Forge Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 216 Taxman 114 (Mad); CIT U. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (2003) 219 CTR 202 (Mad), the A0 is d…

Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

ITA 3948/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2005-06 Century Textile & Industries Dcit Limited , Century Bhawan, Worli Circle 6(2), Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai.-40 Mumbai Pan: Aaacc2659Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Y.P. Trivedi Sh. S.S.Aggarwal(Ar)

For Appellant: Sh. Y.P. TrivediFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 10Section 10B

…es were incurred for improvement of the quality of the existing product not for new product. Reliance has been placed on the following judgment:- (1). CIT Vs. Priya Village Road Shows Ltd (332 ITR 594) Delhi High Court. (2). Indo Rama Synthetic (I) Ltd Vs CIT 333 ITR 18 (Del) (3) CIT Vs Tata Robins Fraser Ltd 253 ITR 227 (Jhar) Ld DR for the revenue has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties. In the present case, the assessee has incurred an expenses of Rs.31,01,677/- in its existing business of Paper and Pulp Division. The facts on rec…

M/S. Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 883/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 14A

…incurred on various items of revenue nature. For this position, we rely on the following cases decided by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court and in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 : (a) Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. V. CIT (20111 333 ITR 18 (Del.) In this case, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the issue of expenditure of Rs.64.48 lacs incurred on expansion of business which plans were later abandonment. The expenditure was incurred in different assessment years and on abandonment of the project, the expenditure was claimed as revenue in nature. The claim of the assessee was disa…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n was taken in the relevant year. Thus, the expenditure arose in the relevant year.” We find similar view has been taken in the following cases :- (a) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT reported in ( 2011) 333 ITR 18 (Del). (b) Unreported decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Alcove Industries Ltd in ITA No. 724 of 2004 dated 17.8.2015 32 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 (c ) Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Asia Power Projects (P) Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 257 (Kar) R…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

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

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…n was taken in the relevant year. Thus, the expenditure arose in the relevant year.” We find similar view has been taken in the following cases :- (a) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs CIT reported in ( 2011) 333 ITR 18 (Del). (b) Unreported decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Alcove Industries Ltd in ITA No. 724 of 2004 dated 17.8.2015 32 ITA Nos.348-314/K/2011 & CO No.23/K/2011 EIH Limited AY 2006-07 (c ) Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Asia Power Projects (P) Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2015) 370 ITR 257 (Kar) R…

Ushdev International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 3294/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Ushdev International Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 020 Road, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Ushdev International Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th Ltd., Floor, New Income Tax, Range-2 (3), R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Harileela House, Mint Road, Mumbai 400 001 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacu 1672 R Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 80I

…the existing business. The learned AR submitted that the claim of deduction of expenditure is allowable in computing the total income of the assessee and he relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of (i) Indorama Synthetics India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) (333 ITR 18) (Del) and (ii) CIT Vs Essar Oil Ltd. (2008) TIOL 530 HC – Bom. Apart from that, the learned AR further relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of (i) CIT Vs. Priya Village Road Shows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Delhi) (High Court and Apollo Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2008 TIOL 379 – Del. 16. On the other hand, the learned DR rel…

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

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…isputed the genuineness of the expenses and in the light of fact that expenses were incurred in the normal course of business, the same is permissible deduction. He relied on the decision of Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 333 ITR 18 (del). 95. Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 96. We have carefully considered the rival contention . Admittedly assessee is in business s of the real estate development. The tender fees paid for bidding of modernisation of airport cannot be said to be the new line of business but it is the same line of business i.e. of development…