Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…d these expenses in its books of account but what is material and relevant is the allowability of these expenses as revenue expenses as per provisions of the Act . The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. (2009) 181 Taxman 5 (Delhi) support the contentions of the assessee in this regards . The taxes are to be collected by the authority of law which is mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Article 265 of the Constitution of ITA 8622 & 7738/Mum/2010 , 1…

Forbes & Company Ltd ( Formerly Known As Forbes Gokak Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579/533 Gr. Floor, Forbes Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Room No. 579/533 (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Gr. Floor, Forbes Building M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

…ility thereof and whether the appellant is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the substance of the transaction. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of .Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363). 5. It is therefore prayed that no addition to book profit under sec. 115JB be made in this respect. 6. In the event it is held that the said provision should be included in computing book profit under sec. 115JB of the Act then the AO be directed to exclude the said provision in computing book profits under sec. 115JB for the assessment year 200…

DCIT (OSD), Mumbai vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. D C I T – 1(1) (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Room No. 579/533 Gr. Floor, Forbes Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent D C I T – 1(1) M/S. Forbes & Company Ltd. Room No. 579/533 (Formerly Forbes Gokak Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Gr. Floor, Forbes Building M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aaacf1765A Appellant Respondent

…ility thereof and whether the appellant is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the substance of the transaction. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of .Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363). 5. It is therefore prayed that no addition to book profit under sec. 115JB be made in this respect. 6. In the event it is held that the said provision should be included in computing book profit under sec. 115JB of the Act then the AO be directed to exclude the said provision in computing book profits under sec. 115JB for the assessment year 200…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

…while discharging his duties, in the course of appellant's ordinary business and therefore the same is incidental to the business of the appellant. For this proposition the appellant relied on the following case laws: • Kedarnath Jute M/g. Co. Limited vs ClT (82 ITR 363) (SC) "Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter" • CIT vs C. Parakh & Co. {India} Limited {29 ITR 6…

Kolon Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2870/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. Cit-8, बनाम/ 417-419, 4Th Floor, Room No. 259, Aayakar Bhavan, M. V. Road, Andheri (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 9118 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.3.2014 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Qua Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Dated 01.12.2011 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Basis Of The Revision In The Present Case Is The Acceptance By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of The Assessee’S Claim For Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) On The Non- Exercise Of The Option To Subscribe To The (Equity) Share Capital In Sintex Industries

…e to its’ shares by 17/7/2009. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India ) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Further, lest we be considered as having travelled outside the scope of this appeal, we may advert to the decisions, inter alia, in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom)(FB). 5. We decide accordingly (refer paras 3.1 through 3.5, and 4). 6. In the r…

ACIT 18(1), Mumbai vs. V.S. Apte & Son, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Acit-18(1), Vs. M/S. V. S. Apte & Son, Room No.116,1St Floor, Piramal 325, Adhyaru Industrial Chambers, Parel, Estate, Mumbai-400 012. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aadfv 3228J Appellant .. Respondent

…e system then the liability does not get postponed merely because quantification is done after the year, but accrued in the previous year. Ld. DR relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). It was further argued by ld. DR that proviso to section 40(a)(ia) deals with the situation where in respect of any such sum, i.e. in the present context being ‘interest’ paid or payable on which tax deductible but not deducted will be allowed deduction in the year TDS is deducted. As per the arguments of ld. DR no interest was paid or paya…

The DCIT 3(1) vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

…on the following decisions. i) Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 505 (Guj) ii) Allas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P&H) iii) Allas Cycle Industries vs. CIT 181 ITR 18 (P&H) iv) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) v) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 116 ITR 1 (SC) & vi) Cehemosyn (P) Ltd. vs. 2nd ITO (1992) 42 ITD 1(Bom)(SB) 6.3 on the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that since the assessee has suffered huge losses during this period, there was no necessity for incurring so much of the expenditure. She also argued that the said expenditure is not rel…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG3(1)

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

…on the following decisions. i) Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 505 (Guj) ii) Allas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P&H) iii) Allas Cycle Industries vs. CIT 181 ITR 18 (P&H) iv) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) v) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 116 ITR 1 (SC) & vi) Cehemosyn (P) Ltd. vs. 2nd ITO (1992) 42 ITD 1(Bom)(SB) 6.3 on the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that since the assessee has suffered huge losses during this period, there was no necessity for incurring so much of the expenditure. She also argued that the said expenditure is not rel…

Korn Ferry International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) Cir 3(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

…fered any loss. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the true nature of the transaction and whether it has actually resulted in profit or loss to the assessee. The reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (ii) Chowringhee Sales Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC) (iii) Satluj Cotton Mills vs CIT (1979) 116 ITR 01 (SC) In the present case, the appellant has not incurred any actual expenditure which accrued to it during F.Y.2009-10 relevant to A.Y.2010-11. The expenditure will be ascertained at the end of the expiry of ESOP scheme ti…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Korn Ferry International P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

…fered any loss. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the true nature of the transaction and whether it has actually resulted in profit or loss to the assessee. The reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (ii) Chowringhee Sales Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC) (iii) Satluj Cotton Mills vs CIT (1979) 116 ITR 01 (SC) In the present case, the appellant has not incurred any actual expenditure which accrued to it during F.Y.2009-10 relevant to A.Y.2010-11. The expenditure will be ascertained at the end of the expiry of ESOP scheme ti…