Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd.

58 ITR 241Reported decision1965#1640 most cited

What is Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. authority for?

The test of enduring benefit for classifying expenditure as capital or revenue is not absolute; expenditure incurred for an enduring advantage may nonetheless be on revenue account, as the test can break down depending on the facts.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. · 58 ITR 241 · enduring benefit test · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · Section 28 Income Tax Act · classification of expenditure · Lord Radcliffe · limitations of enduring benefit test · business expenditure nature · non-compete fee

Sections most often in play

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitrelinquishment of rightsection 10(2)(xv)non-compete feebusiness transfer agreementsection 2(31)going concernslump salesection 51enduring benefitsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)

Judgments citing Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd.

Indus Biotech Limited, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA 122/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…y case has to be decided on its own facts keeping in mind the broad picture of the whole operation in respect of which the expenditure has been incurred. After referring to the decision of Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC), it was held that it would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be prima facie capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all". 21. Further, it was held that there may be cases where expenditure even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduri…

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

ITA 505/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…be decided on its own facts keeping in mind the broad picture of the whole operation in respect of which the expenditure has been incurred. After referring to the decision of Lord Radcliffe in CIT vs. Nchanga Consolidated Coppper Mines Ltd. reported in [1965] 58 ITR 241, it was held that it would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be prima facie capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all". 21. Further, it was held that there may be cases where expenditure even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring be…

Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC

ITA 1694/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri P.P. JayramanFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…be decided on its own facts keeping in mind the broad picture of the whole operation in respect of which the expenditure has been incurred. After referring to the decision of Lord Radcliffe in CIT vs. Nchanga Consolidated Coppper Mines Ltd. reported in [1965] 58 ITR 241, it was held that it would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be prima facie capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all". 21. Further, it was held that there may be cases where expenditure even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring be…

Dbs Bank Ltd (Dbs Bank Ltd., India Branches Now Converted Into Dbs Bank India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Txt)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…table not to revenue but to capital." This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC), it would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be prima facie capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory I.T.A. No. 3691/Mum/2023 I.T.A. No. 4722/Mum/2023 22 as to have no endurance at all". There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…then such expenditure has to be reckoned on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure in future. This principle has been enshrined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC). 23.4.3. In a similar facts and circumstance, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Crompton Engg. Co. Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 317 held that - "The assessee with the intention of bringing about improvements in the way it did its business had sought and obtained report of the consultants, so that efficiency of the business could be incre…

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…then such expenditure has to be reckoned on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure in future. This principle has been enshrined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC). 23.4.3. In a similar facts and circumstance, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Crompton Engg. Co. Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 317 held that - "The assessee with the intention of bringing about improvements in the way it did its business had sought and obtained report of the consultants, so that efficiency of the business could be incre…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K R Vasudevan &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e not to revenue but to capital". This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where 12. there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…e not to revenue but to capital". 12. This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 250Section 92C

…e not to revenue but to capital". 12. This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

The ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Vita Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

…able not to revenue but to capital." This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC), it would be misleading to suppose that, in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be prima facie capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all". There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, nonetheless, be on revenue ac…

M/S. United Breweries Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

…e shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, IT(TP)A No.2532/Bang/2019 United Brewries Ltd., Bangalore Page 49 of 70 as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &
Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

…o capital." This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in Commissioner of Taxes v. Nchanga Page 8 Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC), it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue a…

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…table not to revenue but to capital". This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…table not to revenue but to capital". This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…table not to revenue but to capital". This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as the benefit is not so transitory as to have no endurance at all. There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Vs M/s Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI0106J Assessee by : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 O…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3259/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Vs M/s Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACI0106J Assessee by : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 O…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…preme Court was whether the payment made by the assessee to HV Low & Co, for restricting its export of coal to Burma was in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure. After considering the decision of the Privy Council in Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines: 58 ITR 241 (PC) and the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement vs CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon. apex Court held that if payment were made to ward off competition in business with an object of deriving an advantage by eliminating competition over some length of time, the said expenditure would be in the nature of capital expenditure. On the…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…preme Court was whether the payment made by the assessee to HV Low & Co, for restricting its export of coal to Burma was in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure. After considering the decision of the Privy Council in Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines: 58 ITR 241 (PC) and the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement vs CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon. apex Court held that if payment were made to ward off competition in business with an object of deriving an advantage by eliminating competition over some length of time, the said expenditure would be in the nature of capital expenditure. On the…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…preme Court was whether the payment made by the assessee to HV Low & Co, for restricting its export of coal to Burma was in the nature of capital or revenue expenditure. After considering the decision of the Privy Council in Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines: 58 ITR 241 (PC) and the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Assam Bengal Cement vs CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon. apex Court held that if payment were made to ward off competition in business with an object of deriving an advantage by eliminating competition over some length of time, the said expenditure would be in the nature of capital expenditure. On the…