Jt. CIT v. Beekay Engineering Corporation

323 ITR 252High Court2010#9956 most cited

What is Jt. CIT v. Beekay Engineering Corporation authority for?

Expenditure is deductible in the year the bills are received, even if the services were rendered in a prior period. This applies when the exact liability was not known until the bills were submitted. Additionally, disallowance of interest on borrowed funds is unjustified if the assessee has sufficient funds and there's no evidence that borrowed funds were diverted as interest-free advances to members.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Beekay Engineering Corporation · section 37 · business expenditure · year of deductibility · bills received · interest free advance · disallowance of interest · borrowed funds

Also reported as

38 DTR 289

Issues it is cited on

tax recovery officersection 36(1)(ii)section 51interest free advancesmistake apparent from recordsection 10aacomputer softwaresection 10asection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencysection 36(1)section 36

Judgments citing Jt. CIT v. Beekay Engineering Corporation

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he ITO or the AAC was not justified in disallowing the interest or part of it. Hence, the Tribunal was right in deleting the sum and also in holding that no part of Interest should be disallowed.  Jt. CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289/ 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) Where assessee-firm had given interest-free advance to Karta of HUF which was a partner through Karta and Tribunal's finding was that it was evident from balance sheet of assessee-firm that there was sufficient fund in account of HUF and no evidence was available on record to show that borrowed funds were not utilized by assessee f…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he ITO or the AAC was not justified in disallowing the interest or part of it. Hence, the Tribunal was right in deleting the sum and also in holding that no part of Interest should be disallowed.  Jt. CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289/ 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) Where assessee-firm had given interest-free advance to Karta of HUF which was a partner through Karta and Tribunal's finding was that it was evident from balance sheet of assessee-firm that there was sufficient fund in account of HUF and no evidence was available on record to show that borrowed funds were not utilized by assessee f…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he ITO or the AAC was not justified in disallowing the interest or part of it. Hence, the Tribunal was right in deleting the sum and also in holding that no part of Interest should be disallowed.  Jt. CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289/ 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) Where assessee-firm had given interest-free advance to Karta of HUF which was a partner through Karta and Tribunal's finding was that it was evident from balance sheet of assessee-firm that there was sufficient fund in account of HUF and no evidence was available on record to show that borrowed funds were not utilized by assessee f…

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…he ITO or the AAC was not justified in disallowing the interest or part of it. Hence, the Tribunal was right in deleting the sum and also in holding that no part of Interest should be disallowed.  Jt. CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289/ 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) Where assessee-firm had given interest-free advance to Karta of HUF which was a partner through Karta and Tribunal's finding was that it was evident from balance sheet of assessee-firm that there was sufficient fund in account of HUF and no evidence was available on record to show that borrowed funds were not utilized by assessee f…

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

ITA 4436/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…it is only a futile exercise and consequently, the addition based on the said increase of cost of construction is deleted. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon‟ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Beekay Engineering Corporation India 323 ITR 252 (Chattisgarh). The head note of the same is reproduced as under:- “BUSINESS EXPENDITURE--YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTIBLE-- ASSESSEE DOING JOB WORK FOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION FROM DECEMBER 1988 TO JUNE 1989--BILLS SUBMITTED BY CORPORATION IN AUGUST 1989-- EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91-- INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 37. The assessee enter…

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

ITA 4061/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. Narashimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dlf Limited Addl. Cit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 23(1)

…it is only a futile exercise and consequently, the addition based on the said increase of cost of construction is deleted. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon‟ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Beekay Engineering Corporation India 323 ITR 252 (Chattisgarh). The head note of the same is reproduced as under:- “BUSINESS EXPENDITURE--YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTIBLE-- ASSESSEE DOING JOB WORK FOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION FROM DECEMBER 1988 TO JUNE 1989--BILLS SUBMITTED BY CORPORATION IN AUGUST 1989-- EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91-- INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 37. The assessee enter…

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

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…receipt of the bill. In the opening balance also, similar policy has been adopted. This is the only possible way for accounting. The law does not require the assessee to do the impossible. The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the latest judgment reported in 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) in the case of Beekay Engineering Corporation has decided the similar issue. Head Note of the said judgment is reproduced for your ready reference as under:- “The assessee entered into a contract for doing job works and made a payment of Rs.1,36,767 to B in respect of certain jobs done by it from December 1988 to June 1989. The bil…

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

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…receipt of the bill. In the opening balance also, similar policy has been adopted. This is the only possible way for accounting. The law does not require the assessee to do the impossible. The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the latest judgment reported in 323 ITR 252 (Chhattisgarh) in the case of Beekay Engineering Corporation has decided the similar issue. Head Note of the said judgment is reproduced for your ready reference as under:- “The assessee entered into a contract for doing job works and made a payment of Rs.1,36,767 to B in respect of certain jobs done by it from December 1988 to June 1989. The bil…

M/S. Sri Endrash Investment & Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6956/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

…erefore, no addition could have been made on account of notional interest. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Tripty Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 721 (Orissa) 4 Sri Endrash Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. " Beekay Eng. Corporation (2010) 38 DTR 289 (Chhat) 5. It was further submitted that the assessee had not charged interest for 15 days during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration as the loan was given at the fag end of the financial year. It was stated that as a matter of convenience and with the mutual consent of the borrower the interest for 15 days was wa…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S South Canara District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Mangalore

ITA 34/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajendra, CIT(DR)
Section 145Section 145(1)

…ent of scheme by NABARD and also the percentage approved by NABARD. Hence, this is expenditure pertaining to current year and not earlier years. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation 323 ITR 252, wherein it was held that the expenditure is to be deducted in the year in which the bills are received. 16. Further, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd 339 ITR 382, it was argued that the method of accounting consistently followed in respect of this expenditure should not be disturbed. 17. T…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore vs. M/S South Canara District Central Co.Operative Bank Ltd, Mangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajendra, CIT(DR)
Section 145Section 145(1)

…ent of scheme by NABARD and also the percentage approved by NABARD. Hence, this is expenditure pertaining to current year and not earlier years. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in CIT vs. Beekay Engineering Corporation 323 ITR 252, wherein it was held that the expenditure is to be deducted in the year in which the bills are received. 16. Further, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd 339 ITR 382, it was argued that the method of accounting consistently followed in respect of this expenditure should not be disturbed. 17. T…

Jt. CIT v. Beekay Engineering Corporation (323 ITR 252) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax