Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 802Supreme Court of India1997#111 most cited

What is Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

568

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 225 ITR 802 · SC · enduring benefit · amortisation · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · premium on debentures · straight line method · matching principle

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 153ASection 147Section 153CSection 132Section 14ASection 263
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitsection 32(1)revenue expenditureintangible assetssection 32capital expendituresection 35commercial expediencysection 30book profitsamalgamationmercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

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

…n the end, without prejudice he stated that if in the instance non compete fee is held to be capital in nature then the ld AO may be directed to allow depreciation thereon. For this proposition, also he referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in 225 ITR 802 and also on following decision stating that depreciation is an admissible allowance on non compete fees. He submitted Without prejudice to the aforesaid, that in the instance the aforesaid payment of non-compete fee is held to be capital in nature, then in alternate, the assessing officer may be directed to either allow depreciation or amortizati…

M/S Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 119Section 32(1)(ii)

…ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 AssessmentYear:2011-12, 2012-13& 2014-15 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. #1, Midford House, Midford Assistant Commissioner of Gardens, Off. M.G. Road Vs. Income-tax Circle-5(1)(1) Bengaluru-560 001 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCN2061N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D…

M/S Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 119Section 32(1)(ii)

…ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 AssessmentYear:2011-12, 2012-13& 2014-15 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. #1, Midford House, Midford Assistant Commissioner of Gardens, Off. M.G. Road Vs. Income-tax Circle-5(1)(1) Bengaluru-560 001 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCN2061N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D…

M/S Nandi Economic Corrdior Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 119Section 32(1)(ii)

…ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1063, 1064 & 1079/Bang/2018 AssessmentYear:2011-12, 2012-13& 2014-15 M/s. Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd. #1, Midford House, Midford Assistant Commissioner of Gardens, Off. M.G. Road Vs. Income-tax Circle-5(1)(1) Bengaluru-560 001 Bengaluru PAN NO :AABCN2061N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, D…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Jct Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

…held that, the actual payment need to be done on the redemption of these FCCBs and entries need not be made every year. He applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 225 ITR 802 SC and upheld the claim of the assessee. He pointed out that tax has been deducted at source in the year of redemption of bonds and hence was of the view that no tax need be deducted every year. He held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the premium on yearly basis by relying on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the…

Jct Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2389/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(2)

…held that, the actual payment need to be done on the redemption of these FCCBs and entries need not be made every year. He applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 225 ITR 802 SC and upheld the claim of the assessee. He pointed out that tax has been deducted at source in the year of redemption of bonds and hence was of the view that no tax need be deducted every year. He held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the premium on yearly basis by relying on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…ncurred but claimed a deduction in consonance with the accounting system followed by it. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the claim of the assessee is supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 802 SC. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the claim was allowed by the AO but Ld. Pr. CIT has sought to revise the same for the reason given by him while dealing with the issue as regards the interest. The Ld. A.R. contended that since the claim of the assessee is supported by the Apex Court decision as stated above, the deduction for premium was correctly…

Smt. Puneetha @ Puneetha B. A vs. Sri. D. Ravi

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

RPFC/62/2018HC Karnataka28 Feb 2020

Bench: R DEVDAS

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.62/2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 12, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MPHASIS LTD., BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, WING-A, WTC-3, K.R.PURAM, MARATHHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BENG…

Natvar Parikh & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen IV, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2082/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40Section 40A

…fied period of time, the issue has been dealt by the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Club Mahindra Holidays, 40 DTR 1, wherein after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sasoon, 26 ITR 27, Madras Industrial Corporation Ltd., 225 ITR 802, Calcutta Co. Ltd. 37 ITR 1 and in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., 314 ITR 62, it was held that membership fee received for 33/25 years was liable to spread over the period of time for which such fee is received. Respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to tax 1/25th share of fee in each year, rather than taxing the entire s…

M/S. Rmz One Paramount Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3060/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3060/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Rmz One Paramount Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. W.S.T&D Corporate Ward -3(3), Limited), Chennai – 34. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 116. Pan: Aaacw9388G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–11, Chennai Dated 20.08.2019 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 I.T.A. No. 3060/Chny/2019

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3060/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/s. RMZ One Paramount Limited (formerly known as M/s. W.S.T&D Corporate Ward -3(3), Limited), Chennai – 34. No.108, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 116. PAN: AAACW9388G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2264/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Antil, Sr. DR

…shima Synthetic Ltd (citation not given in the impugned order). In the said decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal has considered a number of judgments including Alambic Chemicals Works Co. Ltd.v CIT 177 ITR 377, Madras Industrial Development Corporation 225 ITR 802, Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 and Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. v ACIT 91 ITD 2080, Hyderabad etc. We are of the considered opinion that the expenditure incurred on advertisements in the aforesaid manner has to be treated as revenue in the nature and was therefore fully allowable. This issue has been considered by this Court as wel…

M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…t with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC). The language of s.14A (1) should be read in that context and such that it advances the scheme of the Act rather than distort it. 16. In conclusion, we are of the view that the provisions of s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income. The questions of law are…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…t with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC). The language of s.14A (1) should be read in that context and such that it advances the scheme of the Act rather than distort it. 16. In conclusion, we are of the view that the provisions of s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income. The questions of law are…

DCIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6387/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit- 2(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Financial Room No.552, Solutions Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers M.K.Road, Mumbai Iii Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.216/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6387/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Tata Motors Vs. Dcit- 2(3)(1) Financial Solutions Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers Iii M.K.Road, Mumbai Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…being used for acquisition of capital assets. The appellant, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements (60 ITR 52) as also in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 802)(SC). It is the fact and not disputed by the AO that what has been raised is a loan and therefore, it is the liability of the assessee. Such liability acquired by way of loans, debentures, commercial papers cannot be considered to be an asset by any stretch of imagination despite the fact that the proceeds of such loan may have been used for acqu…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3452/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…The assessee has been consistently writing off the discount on issue of Euro notes over the period of the Euro notes in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802 and the same has been consistently allowed by the revenue from A.Yrs 1998-99 to 2003-04 under scrutiny assessment proceedings. However, we find that the ld. AO had disallowed the same during the year under consideration on the ground that the assessee in earlier year, when it had earned surplus from the same activity, the surplus was not offered…

I.T.O., Ward-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Caravan Creation Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.99/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of, expenditure in relation to such assumed income. Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC). The language of S.14A (1) should be read in that context and such that it advances the scheme of the Act rather than distort it. In conclusion, we are of the view that the provisions of s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be made applicable in a vacuum i.e. in the absence of exempt income." The Jurisdictional High Co…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम" "ी ए.ट". वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ ए.एल. सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. DCIT 21 Netaji Subhas Road, Circle-5(2), Vs. Kolkata-700 001. Kolkata. (PAN: AABCB 0984 E) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 98/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 DCIT Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Circle-5(2), 21 Netaji Subhas Road, Vs. Kolkata. Kolkata-700 001. (PAN: AABCB 0984 E) Appellant Respondent For the Appellant Shri D.S. Damle…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम" "ी ए.ट". वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ ए.एल. सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 111/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. DCIT 21 Netaji Subhas Road, Circle-5(2), Vs. Kolkata-700 001. Kolkata. (PAN: AABCB 0984 E) Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 98/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 DCIT Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Circle-5(2), 21 Netaji Subhas Road, Vs. Kolkata. Kolkata-700 001. (PAN: AABCB 0984 E) Appellant Respondent For the Appellant Shri D.S. Damle…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Oriental Nagpur Bye Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Oriental Nagpur Bye Central Circle-26, Pass Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 21/48, Commercial Complex, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi Pan :Aabco2017M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…3.02.2014 included the claim of depreciation which had been made and allowed originally. The CBDT circular dated 23.04,2014 clarifying the position in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Madras^’ Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) admittedly held that “In the case where art assessee has claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highway under BOT Projects in, earlier years, the total deduction so claimed may be deducted from the initial cost of infrastructure facility of roads/highway s and the cost so reduced shall be…

ACIT Cen. Cir. - 25, Mumbai vs. M/S. Parle Products P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this ground No

ITA 6964/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma () & Shri Pawan Singh () - Ay 1998-99 - Ay 2002-03 Ita No. 3891/Mum/2007 - Ay 2003-04 - Ay 2009-10 - Ay 2008-09 - Ay 2007-08 - Ay 2006-07 - Ay 2010-11

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…ten it off in its books over a period of years....." 43. In ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd.(2009) 310 ITR(AT) l(Ahmedabad) (SB) the Special Bench of the Tribunal while considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Corp Ltd. vs. C1T (1997] 225 ITR 802 observed and held asunder (page-15): ".....This judgment relied upon by the Id. Departmental Representative itself clarifies that though the taxpayer may have written off the expenditure in its books of account over a period say of five years, it must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it was incurred, if it is revenue expenditure, a…