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

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…, and it is an ascertained liability. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the amount debited/amortized in ITR of earlier years had been correctly claimed by following Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802). 12.5. However, AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and held that employees compensation of Rs. 6,84,523/- has not been crystallized during the year under consideration. Accordingly the same is not allowable expenses. The AO also observed that amount of benefit granted to assessee is in the nature of bonus, commission, or perquisite e…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…, and it is an ascertained liability. Accordingly, the assessee contended that the amount debited/amortized in ITR of earlier years had been correctly claimed by following Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802). 12.5. However, AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and held that employees compensation of Rs. 6,84,523/- has not been crystallized during the year under consideration. Accordingly the same is not allowable expenses. The AO also observed that amount of benefit granted to assessee is in the nature of bonus, commission, or perquisite e…

Subburaaj Cotton Mill Private Limited, Rajapalayam vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 1233/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1233/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 28.07.2019
Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘ए” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1233/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s. Subburaaj Cotton Mill Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mill Premises, Vs. Corporate Circle-2, Srivilliputtur Road, Rajapalayam, Madurai. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AADCS 8760K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri V.Srikrishnan, C.A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A.R.…

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271Section 40a

…irely misplaced and thus it is prayed that the said additions sustained by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted as such. x. The assessee seeks to rely upon the case of Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802, wherein it has been held that merely because revenue expenditure is to be amortized does not seized to be an expenditure and can be allowed accordingly. Apart there from it is submitted that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure as has been consistently held by the High Court of Delhi that there is no concept of deferred revenue ex…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…18/Del/2016. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. clarified. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Vs. CIT,225 ITR 802(SC) and allowed only l/3rd of the expenditure and disallowed an amount of '8,68, 76,973/-. 26.1 Similarly, the AO allowed only l/3rd expenditure and disallowed "11,38,85,144/- out of total of "17,08,28,717/- in the AY 2004-05 and allowed only "14,33,75,323/- and disallowed remaining "28,67,50,647/- out of total expenditure of "43,01,25,970/- in…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…penditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802 allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for development of roads/highways under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purposes of business or profess…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…penditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802 allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for development of roads/highways under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purposes of business or profess…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…penditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802 allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for development of roads/highways under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purposes of business or profess…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2126/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DLF Limited, v. The Addl. Commissioner DLF Centre, (9th Floor), of Income Tax, Range- Sansad Marg, 10, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2749/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of v. DLF Limited, Income Tax, Circle-0, DLF Centre, (9th Floor), New Delhi. Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2126/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DLF Limited, v. The Addl. Commissioner DLF Centre, (9th Floor), of Income Tax, Range- Sansad Marg, 10, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2749/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of v. DLF Limited, Income Tax, Circle-0, DLF Centre, (9th Floor), New Delhi. Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2638/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhito, Ward 6 (2), Vs. M/S. Citi Financial Consumer Finance New Delhi. India Ltd., 3, Local Shopping Centre, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabca3223B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Order : 23.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 92C

…years and never questioned by the department, the assessee clarified. However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Vs. CIT,225 ITR 802(SC) and allowed only 1/3rd of the expenditure and disallowed an amount of Rs.8,68,76,973/-. 26.1 Similarly, the AO allowed only 1/3rd expenditure and disallowed Rs.11,38,85,144/- out of total of Rs.17,08,28,717/- in the AY 2004-05 and allowed only Rs.14,33,75,323/- and disallowed remaining Rs.28,67,50,647/- out of total expenditure of Rs.43,01,2…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…014 also held that right to collect the Toll is a capital expenditure and assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on such Intangible asset as provided under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. On the decision of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vs. CIT [225 ITR 802] referred by ld. PCIT in the show- cause notice, the ld. AR submits that the said judgment dealt with the treatment of amortization of discount on the issue of debenture, whereas in case of assessee, it is regarding treatment of capitalization of cost incurred on BOT project, hence, the judgment is not applicable on the fact of the assessee’s…

Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3835/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhushri T. S. Kapoor

Section 271(1)(c)

…picture of profits in a particular year. While making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC). The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), while upholding the disallowance, also seconded the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Thus, apart from observing that the impugned fees gave an enduring benefit to the assessee company and, therefore, the allowability of expenditure had to be spread over 5 years, the lower authorities have not give…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Projects Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1833/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

…penditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802 allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for ITA Nos.1832 & 1833/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Ranjit Projects pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 & 2013-14 development of roads/highways under BO…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Projects Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1832/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 154

…penditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects brings to it an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the toll during the period of the agreement. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT in 225 ITR 802 allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was continuing benefit to the company over a period. Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for ITA Nos.1832 & 1833/Ahd/2016 DCIT vs. Ranjit Projects pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 & 2013-14 development of roads/highways under BO…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Dynomerk Controls, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(2)

…ITD 280. 2. JCIT Vs. Modi Olivetti Ltd. 4 SOT 859 (Delhi). 3. ACIT Vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 4. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. JCIT 3 SOT 572 (Delhi). 5. Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. JCIT 4SOT 393. 6. Madras Industrial Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 802. 7. Kedatnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 SC. 5. Shri M.K. Verma representing the Department submitted that huge expenditure has been incurred by assessee for product development which would result in enduring benefit to the assessee over a period of time. The ld.D.R. placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Co…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2237/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…evenue expenditure over the lease period in respect of amortized portion of expenditure of Rs. 10,26,000/- in consonance with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC). The ld. AO however observed that the similar expenditure of Rs. 10,26,000/- debited by the assessee in assessment year 2009-10 was 7 8 ITA No.2237/Kol/2016 & C.O. No. 96/Kol/2016 Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. A.Yr. 2011-12 disallowed by his predecessor and following the same the same amount is required to be disallowed in this…

ACIT, C-6, Ludhiana vs. Majestic Hotels Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Jagdeep Goel, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Khera, CA
Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.171/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The A.C.I.T., M/s Majestic Hotels Ltd., बनाम Circlel-6, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACM9066F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Jagdeep Goel, CIT DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri R.S. Khera, CA सनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 28.08.…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3114/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…cture of profits in a particular year. While making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC). The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), while upholding the disallowance, also seconded the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Thus, apart from observing that the impugned fees gave an enduring benefit to the assessee company and, therefore, the allowability of expenditure had to be spread over 5 years, the lower authorities have not gi…

M/S. Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 3113/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…cture of profits in a particular year. While making the disallowance, the Assessing Officer has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC). The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), while upholding the disallowance, also seconded the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Thus, apart from observing that the impugned fees gave an enduring benefit to the assessee company and, therefore, the allowability of expenditure had to be spread over 5 years, the lower authorities have not gi…