Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd.

8 ITR 88Reported decision1940#21512 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…(2009) 124 TTJ 771 (Del) held ESOP discount to be capital and not a allowable/ deductible business expenditure. The Delhi Tribunal placed it reliance on the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Lowry v Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd. (1940) 8 ITR 88 (Supp) and held it to be capital. This decision was upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal. Thus the arguments, as fortified by the above decisions, wherein it has been held that SAR discount is NOT an allowable expenditure (largely for the reason that it is a capita/ expenditure), in favour of SAR discount being capital, are:- • SAR discount are incurred in…

M/S. RELIGARE ENTERPRISE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…(2009) 124 TTJ 771 (Del) held ESOP discount to be capital and not a allowable/ deductible business expenditure. The Delhi Tribunal placed it reliance on the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Lowry v Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd. (1940) 8 ITR 88 (Supp) and held it to be capital. This decision was upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal. Thus the arguments, as fortified by the above decisions, wherein it has been held that SAR discount is NOT an allowable expenditure (largely for the reason that it is a capita/ expenditure), in favour of SAR discount being capital, are:- • SAR discount are incurred in…

DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2096/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2096/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-4(3), M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No.649 1St Floor, Bakhtawar,229 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1232/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(3), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Malathi Sridharan Assessee By: F.V. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order, Dated 24/01/2014, Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking Etc.,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,96,43,36,790/-. The Ao Completed The Assess -Ment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 01/03/2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.4,08, 95,72,691/-.

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)

…t exercise the discount claimed as deduction would be reversed and would be offered for taxation in such later year. 13.Before us,the DR relied upon the cases of Vodafone India services(P.)Ltd (50 Taxmann.com 300)and consolidated African selection Trust Ltd.(8 ITR 88) and supported the order of the AO.The AR referred to the cases of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Novo Nordisk India Private Limited (ITA/1275/BANG/2011). 14.We have heard the rival submissions and carriers the matter before us. We find that parent company of the assessee, KMBL,had offered ESOP to the employees of the assessee, that the as…

KOTAK SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2096/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-4(3), M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No.649 1St Floor, Bakhtawar,229 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1232/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(3), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Malathi Sridharan Assessee By: F.V. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order, Dated 24/01/2014, Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking Etc.,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,96,43,36,790/-. The Ao Completed The Assess -Ment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 01/03/2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.4,08, 95,72,691/-.

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)

…t exercise the discount claimed as deduction would be reversed and would be offered for taxation in such later year. 13.Before us,the DR relied upon the cases of Vodafone India services(P.)Ltd (50 Taxmann.com 300)and consolidated African selection Trust Ltd.(8 ITR 88) and supported the order of the AO.The AR referred to the cases of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Novo Nordisk India Private Limited (ITA/1275/BANG/2011). 14.We have heard the rival submissions and carriers the matter before us. We find that parent company of the assessee, KMBL,had offered ESOP to the employees of the assessee, that the as…

Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd. (8 ITR 88) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax