M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. v. DCIT

220 CTR 298High Court2008#10355 most cited

What is M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Expenses incurred for the development objectives of an appellant are allowable expenses, and treating a portion of such expenses as capital expenditure is not justified.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Godrej Tea Ltd. v. DCIT · business expediency · enduring benefit · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · section 37(1) · development expenses · allowable expenses

Issues it is cited on

section 8osection 58section 38business expediencyenduring benefitsection 2(15)admission of additional evidencesection 12aarevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. v. DCIT

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT ( Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 144/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 143/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 142/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 141/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 139/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 138/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 137/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 136/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 113/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…expenses are necessary being incurred for the development objectives of the appellant, these are allowable expenses. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Courts in the case of M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. V. DCIT (2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and I…

Infomedia 18 Ltd ( Formerly Known As Infomedia India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 4441/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4441/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse (D.R)
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…the assessment order dated 22.08.2008, the assessee company explained that the major addition made by the A.O. are on account of purchase/ up-gradation of the computer software and relied upon decision of Madras High Court in CIT v. Southern Roadways Limited 220 CTR 298(Mad. HC) . The CIT(A) held as far purchase of packed off the shelf software i.e. Adobe , Office 2003 and Office 2004 and upgradation of software (i.e. oracle 8i software ) and RAM, the issue stand covered in favour of the assessee company by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of GE Capital Services Limited 164 Taxmann 46(Del.) and with respect…

M/s. Godrej Tea Ltd. v. DCIT (220 CTR 298) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax