Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

149 ITR 52High Court1984#5051 most cited

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Judgments citing Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

TRIUNE ENERGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2096/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2008-09

…nsel relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. 306 ITR 182; CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 205 CTR 574 (Del); CIT Vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 590 (Del); and Instalment Supply Pvt. 7 Ltd. Vs. CIT 149 ITR 52 (Del). It was also pointed out that the expenditure on repair & maintenance of building incurred in A.Y. 2009-10 was not disallowed in order of assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6.2. Learned DR has supported the findings with the contention that from the record it appears that insurance claim was also raised so possibly there was fire etc.…

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the ground No

ITA 330/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 320/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 319/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMMU, SRINAGAR vs. MESERS JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 790/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX , CIRCLE -1,, JAMMU vs. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 637/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 297/ASR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD,, SRINAGAR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 296/ASR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14A(3)Section 250(6)Section 36Section 40

…missions, expenses booked under this head are also otherwise allowable as these are revenue in nature and no tangible asset has come into existence. In this connection your attention is invited to direct case law on the point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 149 ITR 52 has held that converting of hall in leasehold premises into cabins by putting partitions is an allowable expenditure as it facilitates business. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) has held that expenditure I.T.A. No. 790/Asr/2017 16 & Others appeals on construction on leasehold l…

COMM.OF INCOME TAX,AP -I,HYDERABAD vs. M/S.LAKSHMI BUILIDERS,HYD

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITTA/67/2001HC Telangana07 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

…create any new asset. Learned counsel relied upon the decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 124 ITR 1 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del). 4. Counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that the facts in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) were closer to the facts of this case and that the impugned order cannot be characterized as unreasonable. He also relied upon the Madras High Court ruling in CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash, (1999) 237 ITR 902. 5. In our opinion, in thi…

M/S. ASPECT RESEARCH & MANAGEMETN P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3204/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40

…ue in nature and in support, he relied upon the following judgments:- CIT vs Amway India Enterprises: 346 ITR 341 (Del) CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 155 Taxman 559 (Del) CIT vs. HI Line Pens (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 306 ITR 182 (Del) Instalment Supply (P) Ltd vs CIT 149 ITR 52 (Del)– 6 I.T.A. No.3204/DEL/2015 CIT vs Ayesha Hospitals (P) Ltd: 292 ITR 266 (Mad) CIT vs Dr. A.M. Singhvi: 302 ITR 26 (Raj) Kanpur Dyeing & Printing Co vs CIT: 76 ITR 686 (All) Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. vs DCT: 350 ITR 324 (Mad) 6. Regarding non deduction of TDS, he submitted that, firstly, provision of Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable in…

PROSALES FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prosales Financial Services बिधम/ Ito 10(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 158, Dani Corporate Park, 1St Road, Mumbai-400020. Floor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruze (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2576K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prosales Financial Services बिधम/ ITO 10(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 158, Dani Corporate Park, 1st Road, Mumbai-400020. Floor, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruze (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECP2576K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue by: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 08/01/202…

ITO 3(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. THEBROMA FOODS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)(3) M/S. Theobroma Foods R.No. 672, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Jamuna Sagar, V. M.K. Road, 59/60, Shahid Bhagat New Marine Lines, Singh Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct0588K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Rohan Deshpande सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 765/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.10.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-344/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30

…R 309 (Bom)]. A copy of the judgement in Talathi and Panthaky Associated Pvt. Ltd. is hereto annexed for Your Honour's perusal as Annexure H. I) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also taken a similar view inter alia in Instalment Supply P. Ltd. v. CIT, [(1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del)] and CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd., [306 ITR 182 (Del)]. m) Based on the above factual and legal submissions, it is reiterated that expenses of the Appellant on repairs and maintenance of the business premises of the Appellant are revenue expenses and not capital expenses and hence, deduction in respect thereof should be allowed by deleting…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VNS ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1283/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Vns Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Circle-26(1) A-11-12, Amrit Nagar C. R. Building Behind Ndse-1 I.P. Estate New Delhi New Delhi Aaccv9888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…rented premises for its business activity — no intention of assessee to bring any new capital asset — such expenses falling within expression “repairs to premises” in section 30(a)(i) — allowable — income-tax act, 1961, s. 30(a)(i) CIT v. Installment Supply 149 ITR 52(Del) DEDUCTIONS — REPAIRS — TENANT OF PREMISES TAKEN ON LEASE — EXPENDITURE BY TENANT TO SUIT INCREASED OFFICE NEED, AND FOR BETTER FITTINGS AND MARBLE FLOORING AND WOOD WORK — ADVANTAGEOUS IN COMMERCIAL SENSE — ALLOWABLE AS EXPENSES TOWARDS REPAIRS EVEN IF CAPITAL IN NATURE — INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, s. 30(a)(i), (ii) 8 From the above facts discu…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S LABORATORIES GRIFFON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…ainst the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed." 16. Before us the Ld. AR cited the following case laws: i) Delhi Tribunal in the case of P.S.B. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner reported in 35 ITD 9 (TM) (Delhi), ii) Instalment Supply P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del.), iii) CIT Vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC) 17. Taking note of the decisions as relied on above, we note that the assessee has taken on lease the factory premises situated at Haji Moosa Parawala Industrial Estate, 20, Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai - 400011. The lease agreement was entered for a period of thirteen years and was to e…

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…is placed on the following decisions to allow assessee's claim of repairs and maintenance of Rs. 1003119,938/-. 1) CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Ltd [306 JTR 182(Del)] 2) CIT Vs Kishenchand Chella Ram (I) Ltd. 13 ITR 385 (Mad) 3) Instalment Supply Put. Ltd Vs. CIT [149 ITR 52 (Del)] Page 27 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 4) Allied Metal Products Vs. CIT 1137 ITR 689 P&HJ 5,) CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash [237 ITR 902 (Mad)/ 6) Kotak Securities Vs Addl. CIT (supra) 7) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2006) (Del) 205 CTR Del 574 8) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (…

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…is placed on the following decisions to allow assessee's claim of repairs and maintenance of Rs. 1003119,938/-. 1) CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Ltd [306 JTR 182(Del)] 2) CIT Vs Kishenchand Chella Ram (I) Ltd. 13 ITR 385 (Mad) 3) Instalment Supply Put. Ltd Vs. CIT [149 ITR 52 (Del)] Page 27 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 4) Allied Metal Products Vs. CIT 1137 ITR 689 P&HJ 5,) CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash [237 ITR 902 (Mad)/ 6) Kotak Securities Vs Addl. CIT (supra) 7) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2006) (Del) 205 CTR Del 574 8) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (…

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…is placed on the following decisions to allow assessee's claim of repairs and maintenance of Rs. 1003119,938/-. 1) CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Ltd [306 JTR 182(Del)] 2) CIT Vs Kishenchand Chella Ram (I) Ltd. 13 ITR 385 (Mad) 3) Instalment Supply Put. Ltd Vs. CIT [149 ITR 52 (Del)] Page 27 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 4) Allied Metal Products Vs. CIT 1137 ITR 689 P&HJ 5,) CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash [237 ITR 902 (Mad)/ 6) Kotak Securities Vs Addl. CIT (supra) 7) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2006) (Del) 205 CTR Del 574 8) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (…

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…is placed on the following decisions to allow assessee's claim of repairs and maintenance of Rs. 1003119,938/-. 1) CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Ltd [306 JTR 182(Del)] 2) CIT Vs Kishenchand Chella Ram (I) Ltd. 13 ITR 385 (Mad) 3) Instalment Supply Put. Ltd Vs. CIT [149 ITR 52 (Del)] Page 27 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 4) Allied Metal Products Vs. CIT 1137 ITR 689 P&HJ 5,) CIT Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash [237 ITR 902 (Mad)/ 6) Kotak Securities Vs Addl. CIT (supra) 7) CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2006) (Del) 205 CTR Del 574 8) CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (…

ARIES EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5841/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5841/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Aries Exports Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Bhaktawar, 11 Th Floor, Income Tax – Circle 3(1), V. Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacca2924N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 30

…expires, these items will be removed but the flooring and POP and other such identical expenses cannot be removed and needs to be charged to P&L account. In support, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. CIT 149 ITR 52 (Del) (ii) CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182 (Del) (iii) ACIT v. M.M. Publications Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 59 (Cochin) (Trib). ITA 5841/Mum/2012 5 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs. 37,56,259/- on items of floor marbles and its fixing, civil work, flooring, civil work and painting on the premises which…

M/S COMFORT LIVING HOTELS P. LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III

The appeal is hereby allowed

ITA/67/2001HC Delhi10 Mar 2014

…create any new asset. Learned counsel relied upon the decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 124 ITR 1 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del). 4. Counsel for the Revenue on the other hand submitted that the facts in Ballimal Naval Kishore (supra) were closer to the facts of this case and that the impugned order cannot be characterized as unreasonable. He also relied upon the Madras High Court ruling in CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash, (1999) 237 ITR 902. 5. In our opinion, in thi…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2