Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co.(P) Ltd. v. CIT

3 SCC 526Reported decision1971#24333 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2022.

Judgments citing Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co.(P) Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Green Delhi Bqs Limited, New Delhi

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

ITA 3068/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Aashna Paul, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 36

…ber of cases holding that where the property constructed is not owned by the assessee but by third party, the expenditure incurred by the assessee would not be capital expenditure but revenue expenditure [see Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co.(P) Ltd. versus CIT, (1971) 3 SCC 526, CIT versus Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 496]. 13. The test distinguishing capital and revenue expenditure as laid down in Atherton versus British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd.,(1925) 10 TC 155, reads as under:- "But there remains the question, which I have found more difficult, whether apart from the express prohibit…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Green Delhi Bqs Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1067/2018HC Delhi05 Oct 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260A

…of cases holding that where the property constructed is not owned by the assessee but by third party, the expenditure incurred by the assessee would not be capital expenditure but revenue expenditure [see Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co.(P) Ltd. versus CIT, (1971) 3 SCC 526, CIT versus Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 496]. 13. The test distinguishing capital and revenue expenditure as laid down in Atherton versus British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd.,(1925) 10 TC 155, reads as under:- “But there remains the question, which I have found more difficult, whether apart from the express…

M/S. Amco Batteries Ltd., Bangalore vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003

For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore

Section 3

…id. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544]. (6) The right to speedy trial. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81]. (7) The right against handcuffing. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration [(1980) 3 SCC 526]. (8) The right against delayed execution. T.V. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 55 Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N. [(1983) 2 SCC 68]. (9) The right against custodial violence. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra [(1983) 2 SCC 96]. (10) The right against public hanging. A.G. of India v. Lachma Devi [1989 Supp (…