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

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

ITA 2677/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…

CIT I vs. Acl Wireless Ltd

ITA/254/2013HC Delhi10 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 260A

…y and software application, which do not in any manner supplant the source of income or added to the fixed capital of the Assessee.” 12. The ITAT also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LTD., (2011) 333 ITR 18 (DEL.), wherein the Court has held that the expenditure incurred which was in the nature of salaries, wages, repairs, maintenance, design and engineering fee, etc. and incurred in the normal course of business towards the assignment given to consultants for the purposes of improving operational efficiency and was not towards acquiring…