Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (Mad)

209 ITR 174Reported decision1993#4313 most cited

What is Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) authority for?

Decisions of the jurisdictional ITAT are binding on the Assessing Officer, meaning they must be followed when facts are identical. Therefore, interference with an AO's decision based on such binding precedents is inappropriate.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT · 209 ITR 174 · jurisdictional ITAT · binding precedent · Assessing Officer · Orient Cosmetics Ltd. · identical facts

Issues it is cited on

section 56(i)(ccv)section 80(p)section 10(2)section 80(p)(2)section 3(b)section 2(11)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)section 36(va)section 43b(b)section 143(1)(a)(iv)

Judgments citing Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (Mad)

M/S. Sun Paper Mills Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyिनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S. Sun Paper Mill Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 11/6, Second Street, Income-Tax, Corporate Circle Ratnapuri , Koyambedu 6(2), Room No. 705 Chennai-600 107. 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 5044 B ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…nses on the ground that the assessee has not produced any proof to show that these expenditure were crystallized during the year by relying on the decision of :- 7 -: the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Fertilizers Limited v. CIT reported in 209 ITR 174. Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was the contention of the assessee that the assessee has voluntarily suo motu disallowed the said expenses while computing income chargeable to tax and the Ld.CIT(A) was pleased to direct the AO to verify the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee and delete the same while computing the income chargeable to tax in…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1304/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1304/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Bharatiya Nabhikiya Income Tax, Vidyut Nigam Ltd, No.51, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Chennai 600 034. Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan Aaccb 3460C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…xpenditure has to be capitalized and it cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of M/s. Orient Cosmetics Ltd vs DCIT, 74 ITD 135 and M/s. Madras Fertilizers Limited vs CIT, 209 ITR 174. The Assessing Officer :- 4 -: also disallowed preliminary expenses which are eligible for deduction u/s.35D of the Act of Rs.40,01,200/-. 4. .Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order held that once the business has been set up, the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue expenditure by plac…

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 451/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.451/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Gandhigram Income Tax Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaach4275P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2019 01.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…e year under consideration is disallowable, accordingly disallowed the expenditure of Rs.3,45,98,000/- and added back to the income. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (Mad) (209 ITR 174). 5. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO stating that the assessee did not furnish any supporting information to show that the present liability was on account of insufficient provision made in the earlier year. In the absence of such evidence, the Ld.…

ACIT vs. M/Scineplex Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 1673/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 43B

…venue is that the CIT(A) deleted an addition of Rs.44,42,893/- made by the AO on interest paid on unsecured loans. As per the revenue, the CIT(A) had misinterpreted the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Fertilizers Ltd Vs CIT (1993) 209 ITR 174. 4. Facts apropos are that the assessee operating a Multiplex Theatre in Bharath Mall, had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 01-10-2010 declaring a total income of Rs.95,59,410/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that a sum of Rs.88,85,787/- was charged as interest in the P&L account. Since…

CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd

ITA/1820/2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 37

…the view taken by the AO namely the expenditure incurred needed to be amortized under Section 35 D (2) of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 209 ITR 174 and dismissed this ground taken by the assessee in its appeal. 5. In further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee has succeeded. The Tribunal has held that Section 35 D of the Act was wrongly invoked as it had no applicability. Reason was simple, viz., the nature of expenditure does not fall under the ambit of preliminary expenditu…

CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd

ITA - 1 / 2011HC Delhi30 Mar 2011

…ed the view taken by the AO namely the expenditure incurred needed to be amortized under Su.tlon 35 D (2) of the Act. The CtT (A) referred to and relied upon the judgment of the, Madras ,High Court in Madras Fertilizers tr-td. Vs. Commissianpr of ,lncome Tax, 209 ITR 174 and dismissed this ground taken by the assessee in its appeal 5: ln further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee has .succeeded. The Tribunal has held that Section 35 D of the Act was wrongly invoked as it had no applicability. Reason was simple, viz.., the nature of expenditure does not fall under the ambit of preliminary expenditure as e…

CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd

ITA - 5 / 2011HC Delhi30 Mar 2011
Section 37

…the view taken by the AO namely the expenditure incurred needed to be amortized under Section 35 D (2) of the Act. The CIT (A) referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Madras Fertilizers ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 209 ITR 174 and dismissed this ground taken by the assessee in its appeal. 5. In further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee has succeeded. The Tribunal has. Ileld that Section 35 D of the Act was wrongly invoked as it had no applicability. Reason was simple, viz., the nature of expenditure does not fall under the ambit of preliminary expenditur…