JCIT v. Mukund Ltd. (291 ITR 249)

GLOBAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 11(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1424/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1424/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16

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

…9. SA Builders v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) 10. Hero Cycles Limited v. CIT (SC) : 379 ITR 347 (SC) 11. J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT : 72 ITR 612 (SC) Re: Tribunal can give finding or direction in relation to other assessment year 12. JCIT v. Mukund Ltd. : 291 ITR 249 (AT) (Mum) 13. Perfect Equipments v. DCIT : 85 ITD 50 (Ahd.) 14. MMTC Limited v. ACIT : ITA No. 5147, 5166/Del/2016 (Del Trib.) ITA No. 1424.Del.2019 M/s. Global Consultants & Designers P. Ltd. 7 7.1. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below. 8. Appreciating the matter on r…

ADDLCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MMTC LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5166/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas

Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…f the learned CIT – A. 21. With respect to the allowability of the above claim of the assessee in assessment year 2009 – 10, the learned authorised representative has referred to the special bench decision of joint Commissioner of income tax versus Mukand Ltd 291 ITR 249 (IT) as well as the decision of the coordinate bench in case of perfect equipments versus DCIT 85 ITD 50 (AHD), it has been held that the provisions of Section 153 (3) gives the power to the appellate authority lifting the bar of the time limitation for giving effect to the finding or direction contained in the order of the tribunal regarding bri…

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5147/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas

Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

…f the learned CIT – A. 21. With respect to the allowability of the above claim of the assessee in assessment year 2009 – 10, the learned authorised representative has referred to the special bench decision of joint Commissioner of income tax versus Mukand Ltd 291 ITR 249 (IT) as well as the decision of the coordinate bench in case of perfect equipments versus DCIT 85 ITD 50 (AHD), it has been held that the provisions of Section 153 (3) gives the power to the appellate authority lifting the bar of the time limitation for giving effect to the finding or direction contained in the order of the tribunal regarding bri…

ACIT CIRCLE-16 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena

Section 115JSection 14A

…e first year when the liability is actually incurred i.e., discount given. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel relied upon the following case laws:– i) Taparia Tools Ltd. v/s JCIT, [2015] 55 taxmann.com 361 (SC); ii) JCIT v/s Mukund Ltd., [2007] 291 ITR 249 (SB) (Mum.); and iii) CIT v/s Amar Ujala Publication Ltd., [2016] 72 taxmann.com 159 (Del.). 35. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. There is no dispute that the expenses claimed by the assessee are revenue in natur…

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 911/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)

…ards. 14 onwards. 10.1. We find that the Mumbai Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of We find that the Mumbai Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of We find that the Mumbai Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of JCIT vs. Mukund Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 249 (Mumbai) Ltd. reported in (2007) 291 ITR 249 (Mumbai), has held as follows:- “21. In the case before us the lease is for a period of 99 years, which is as good as a perpetual 21. In the case before us the lease is for a period of 99 years, which is as good as a perpetual 21. In the case before us the lease is for a period of 99 years, which is a…

MANISH TRADERS,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4481/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Chander, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DR

Section 147Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

…over, substantial interest of the assessee has been created in 7 ITA No.4481/Del./2016 the property in question. So, when the tenure of the lease is for 90 12. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mukund Ltd. 291 ITR 249 held that premium paid by the assessee for acquisition of the leasehold rights for 99 years in the land are capital in nature and as such the premium paid by the assessee could not be considered as advance payment of rent. 13. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, property in question is to be treated as land and not tenanc…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HFCL INFOTEL LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5008/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 35Section 35A

…plotfOrm are based for the officials of the assessee company to develop contract for promoting interest of the company and promote business. He cited following decisions in support (i) Hero Hondo Motors Ltd. Vs. JCIT 103 ITD 157 (Del.); (ii) JCIT Vs. Mukand 291 ITR 249 (Mum.) (SB); (iii) Gujarat Petro Synthesis Ltd. Vs. DCIT 76 ITD 257 (Ahd.); (iv) CIT Vs. Samtel Colour Ltd. 2009 - TMI - 32263 (Delhi High Court); 4.3 Considering the above submissions and the decisions cited in support we do not find any infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue as considering the expenditure incurred and nature of i…

ITO (TDS) 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ENAM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4421/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri C.N.Prasad

For Appellant: Shri A.K.NayakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Desai

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

…2002) 258 ITR 459 wherein it was held that amount of Rs.45 lacs paid by the assessee to M/s. APVE Ltd. for acquisition of leasehold land was a capital expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mukund Ltd. 106 ITR 231 wherein it was held that the premium paid for acquiring leasehold right in land was a capital expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) then discussed the case laws relied upon by the AO in his orders and recorded a finding after such discussion that in none of the said case laws, it was held that the lease premium paid in the similar circumstances was in the n…

ITO (TDS) 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ENAM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3639/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2009-10) Ito (Tds) 1(2)(2) Vs. M/S Enam Financial R.No.812 K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Charni Road 44, 2Nd Floor, Khatau Mumbai – 400 002 Building, Sahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Bank Street Mumbai – 400 023 Pan : Aaace1052H (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Respondent By : Shri Manish D Desai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017

For Appellant: Mrs Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Manish D Desai

Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…2002) 258 ITR 459 wherein it was held that amount of Rs.45 lacs paid by the assessee to M/s. APVE Ltd. for acquisition of leasehold land was a capital expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mukund Ltd. 106 ITR 231 wherein it was held that the premium paid for acquiring leasehold right in land was a capital expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) then discussed the case laws relied upon by the AO in his orders and recorded a finding after such discussion that in none of the said case laws, it was held that the lease premium paid in the similar circumstances was in the n…

ASIAN HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2865/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 14A

…rlier year has been disallowed and further no depreciation is admissible on land. Accordingly he disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by the Special bench of Mumbai Tribunal Mukund Ltd (13 SOT 558) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs. DCIT (293 ITR 437). 5. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and also certain other decision to contend that the premium amount paid by the assessee should be treated as advance re…

A.C.I.T. 10(1), MUMBAI vs. ASIAN HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTER PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2257/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 14A

…rlier year has been disallowed and further no depreciation is admissible on land. Accordingly he disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by the Special bench of Mumbai Tribunal Mukund Ltd (13 SOT 558) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Enterprising Enterprises Vs. DCIT (293 ITR 437). 5. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and also certain other decision to contend that the premium amount paid by the assessee should be treated as advance re…

ITO (TDS) 2(5), MUMBAI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 194

…mstances, Hon'ble Bombay High Court as already stated above, held that the payment of Rs.45 lakhs by the assessee was a capital expenditure and hence the same was not deductible. 5.37 The Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of JCIT vs. Mukund Ltd., (106 ITR 231] also had an occasion to consider the similar issue i.e. "whether the premium paid for acquiring leasehold right in land is revenue or capital". The Special Bench of the Jurisdictional Tribunal has similarly held asunder: “21. In the case before us the lease is for a period of 99 years, which is as good as a perpetual lease in favour of the asse…

JCIT v. Mukund Ltd.

Also reported as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing JCIT v. Mukund Ltd.