Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Ald Automotive P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

…te the assessee’s claim. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [refer: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Notwithstanding, therefore, a claim of depreciation by the lessees/s, i.e., assuming so, there being no estoppel against law, the assessee’s claim, where correct, cannot be denied. The proper course with the Revenue is to deny or, as the case may be, withdraw such a claim in the hands of the lessee/s. Rather, as the assessee contends, and w…

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive P.Tld, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 907 & 109/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), बनाम/ 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2179 & 601/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 13Th Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca 0924 K (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal Revenue By : Shri B. B. Rajendra Prasad सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 & 2008-09, U/S. 253 Of (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ald Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Arising Out Of The Orders By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31.12.2012. The Appeals Raise Two Issues, One Brought By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue, I.E., With Regard To: A) Depreciation On Lease Assets; & B) Transfer (Of A Part) Of Fleet Management Charges To Maintenance Accounts

…te the assessee’s claim. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [refer: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Notwithstanding, therefore, a claim of depreciation by the lessees/s, i.e., assuming so, there being no estoppel against law, the assessee’s claim, where correct, cannot be denied. The proper course with the Revenue is to deny or, as the case may be, withdraw such a claim in the hands of the lessee/s. Rather, as the assessee contends, and w…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

…is Auditor as following. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter [refer: CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. By (A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09) Anand R Behl not claiming certain expenses, admissible in nature, on the ground that the same are unpaid, he is at best following hybrid system of accounting, since proscribed by law (by Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1/4/1997). Where so, the option of choosing between the cash or mercantile method of accounting being…

Krishna Filaments Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT (OSD-II) (C)-7, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes (as indicated above)

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

…he applicant company to claim the same as allowable revenue expenditure for the year under consideration. In this connection, the learned AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). The CIT (DR) has not contradicted the applicant‟s claim in the above matter. We have considered the issue and have also heard the learned AR. Having regard to the mercantile system of accounting followed by the applicant, we find that the applicant is entitled to claim deduction for the above amount. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.…

Krishna Filaments Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT (OSD-II) (C)-7, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes (as indicated above)

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

…he applicant company to claim the same as allowable revenue expenditure for the year under consideration. In this connection, the learned AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC). The CIT (DR) has not contradicted the applicant‟s claim in the above matter. We have considered the issue and have also heard the learned AR. Having regard to the mercantile system of accounting followed by the applicant, we find that the applicant is entitled to claim deduction for the above amount. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.…

Arihant Construction, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

…s, yet since its inception, the accounting treatment given to Badlapur land in its books of accounts is that of/as applicable to a Capital Asset (i.e. Investment). The Hon'bIe Supreme Court has clearly held in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [82 ITR 363] that the entries in books of accounts are not conclusive and that the true nature of income/expense is determinative in deciding the taxability of income or allowability of an expense. 11. If we consider the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the assessee to verify the true nature of Badlapur Land ignoring the accounting entries in books of…

Sulzer India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7324/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sulzer India Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gate No. 304, Income Tax – 8(3), V. Kondhapuri, Room No. 212, 2 Nd Floor, Tal- Shirur, Aayakar Bhavan, Dist. Pune – 412 209. M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacs 7876D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…ough invoices / debit notes have not been received by the year end. The assessee company relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their workmen, 73 ITR 53 (SC) and Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC). The assessee company also submitted that the learned CIT(A) has allowed the ground in the assessment year 2007-08. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that if provisions of Rs.11,15,000/- made for legal and professional fee are disallowed in the impugned assessment year, then the AO be directed to allow ITA 7324/Mum/2012 5 th…

ITO 6(1)1, Mumbai vs. Adikanksha Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed at the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7237/Mum/2010 & 2049/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Ito-6(1)-1, Adikanksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 503, Aayakar Bhavan, 69-A/2, Shah & Nahar Industrial बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Estate, Dhanraj Mills Compound, Vs. Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacca 8081 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt

…ing at Rs.19,20,137/- and Rs.26,69,629/- as on 31.3.2007 and 31.3.2008 respectively. It is the correct legal position that is relevant, and not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter {refer: Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC)}. 4. We summarize our decision as under: a) there is in the facts and circumstances of the case, nothing to support the inference of suppression of income, and the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on that account is upheld; b) the assessee would be entitled to…