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 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 348/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…mber of -: 14 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore years even if the assessee has written it off in his books over a period of years. Reliance can be placed on Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC).” 19. In view of the above discussion, it is very clear that there is no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 7.2] That Hon’ble Apex Court in the…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 347/IND/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…mber of -: 14 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore years even if the assessee has written it off in his books over a period of years. Reliance can be placed on Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC).” 19. In view of the above discussion, it is very clear that there is no prohibition on the powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according to the Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 7.2] That Hon’ble Apex Court in the…

ACIT, Cir.-1(2), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…similar issue in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 97-98 of allowing 1/5th of bond issue expenses every year considering the expenditure to be deferred revenue expenses in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn Ltd. 225 ITR 802. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing preliminary expenses of Rs.1,78,432/- u/s. 35D of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of his predecessor on the same issue for A.Y.97-98 wherein the deduction u/s. 35D of the…

M/S. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, WD.-3(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…similar issue in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 97-98 of allowing 1/5th of bond issue expenses every year considering the expenditure to be deferred revenue expenses in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn Ltd. 225 ITR 802. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing preliminary expenses of Rs.1,78,432/- u/s. 35D of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of his predecessor on the same issue for A.Y.97-98 wherein the deduction u/s. 35D of the…

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…similar issue in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 97-98 of allowing 1/5th of bond issue expenses every year considering the expenditure to be deferred revenue expenses in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn Ltd. 225 ITR 802. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing preliminary expenses of Rs.1,78,432/- u/s. 35D of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of his predecessor on the same issue for A.Y.97-98 wherein the deduction u/s. 35D of the…

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Mantri Housing & Constructions Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…similar issue in earlier year i.e. A.Y. 97-98 of allowing 1/5th of bond issue expenses every year considering the expenditure to be deferred revenue expenses in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn Ltd. 225 ITR 802. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing preliminary expenses of Rs.1,78,432/- u/s. 35D of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not following the decision of his predecessor on the same issue for A.Y.97-98 wherein the deduction u/s. 35D of the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Iti Holdings & Investment Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 647/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14A

…bentures. 5. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that premium on redemption of debentures has to be allowed as revenue expenditure in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation v. CIT (1997) (225 ITR 802). The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos.2438 & 2439/Mds/2016 dated 27.02.2017. 6. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (supra) has observed at pages 812 and 813 as follow…

Iti Holdings and Investment Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 646/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.646/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 14A

…bentures. 5. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that premium on redemption of debentures has to be allowed as revenue expenditure in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation v. CIT (1997) (225 ITR 802). The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos.2438 & 2439/Mds/2016 dated 27.02.2017. 6. We heard Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (supra) has observed at pages 812 and 813 as follow…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai vs. United Metal Industries, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2439/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2439/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘’सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2439/CHNY/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2014-2015 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/s. United Metal Industries, of Income Tax, No.31, Non Corporate Circle 3, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [PAN AAAFU 1182F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT. ""…

United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2839/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of United Home Entertainment Income Tax-16(1), Room Pvt. Ltd. No.439, Aayakar Bhavan, S-14, Solitaire Corporate Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-20 Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacu6668D United Home Entertainment Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 7(3) 1St Floor, Building No. 14, Mumbai Vs. Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…of dubbing the program will be available at least for this period. It is in this background that we may refer to the following observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras High Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [(1997)) 225 ITR 802 (SC)]:. "...Sec. 37(1) further requires that the expenditure should not be of a capital nature. The question whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commercial trading. The questio…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Unitd Home Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1939/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of United Home Entertainment Income Tax-16(1), Room Pvt. Ltd. No.439, Aayakar Bhavan, S-14, Solitaire Corporate Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-20 Park, Guru Hargovind Singh Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacu6668D United Home Entertainment Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 7(3) 1St Floor, Building No. 14, Mumbai Vs. Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…of dubbing the program will be available at least for this period. It is in this background that we may refer to the following observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras High Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [(1997)) 225 ITR 802 (SC)]:. "...Sec. 37(1) further requires that the expenditure should not be of a capital nature. The question whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commercial trading. The questio…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sud Chemie India P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 41/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…"loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. This view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been approved by this Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). According to the Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, s. 37(1) is a residuary section extending the I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by ss. 30 to 36. This section, according to the learned author, covers cases of business expenditure only, and not of business losses wh…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sud Chemie India P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…"loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee. This view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been approved by this Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). According to the Law and Practice of Income-tax by Kanga and Palkhivala, s. 37(1) is a residuary section extending the I.T.A. Nos./ 3, 17 & 41/C/2017 allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by ss. 30 to 36. This section, according to the learned author, covers cases of business expenditure only, and not of business losses wh…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER State Bank of India ACIT Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACS8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT Circle (2)(2), State Bank of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACS8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Urvi : Mehta (AR) Revenue by…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER State Bank of India ACIT Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACS8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT Circle (2)(2), State Bank of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACS8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Urvi : Mehta (AR) Revenue by…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1635/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…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 , 2002-TIOL-290-SC-IT-LB 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 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 infrastructure project for development…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1634/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…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 , 2002-TIOL-290-SC-IT-LB 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 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 infrastructure project for development…

ACIT, Ltu-2, Kolkata vs. M/S Century Plyboards(I), Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all appeals of Revenue,( that is, ITA No

ITA 1633/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1633, 1634 & 1635/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata Vs. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. 6Th Floor, Large Tax Payer Unit, 180, 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 700 Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 1682 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri D. S. Damle, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orderspassed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officerunder Section 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First We Take Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.1633/Kol/2016, A.Y. 2009- 10. M/S Century Plyboards (I) Ltd.

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…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 , 2002-TIOL-290-SC-IT-LB 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 M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. ITA No.1633, 1634 &1635/Kol/2016 A.Yrs.: 2009-10,2011-12& 2012-13 infrastructure project for development…

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.5 & 6 of the appeal are dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran,Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(3)(1), M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Aayakar Bhavan, Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.),Now Mumbai-400020. Vs. Merged With Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Dcit 3(3)(1), Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.),Now Merged With Travel Mumbai-400020. Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni Vs. House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT –DR with & with Ms Pooja Swaroop ( Sr
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 8O

…travel business carried by Tour Club Express Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) wrongly allowed the expenditure as a revenue expenditure. The learned DR for the revenue relied upon the decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd v/s CIT [225 ITR 802(SC)] and decision of Bombay High Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. v/s JCIT(2003) 260 ITR 102(Bombay). 6. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO treated the expenditure as capital expenditure holding that in the books of account, the assessee has shown the amount paid for non-compet…

ACIT, Trichy vs. Jennys Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Trichy

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: 06.12.2017For Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 115JSection 250Section 43B

…the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in CO Nos.72, 73, 112,113 & 114/Mds/2014 & 132/Mds/2015 adopting compound interest @ 12.92% without taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case CIT vs. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited reported in 225 ITR 802 wherein it was held that the rate of interest should be adopted on ‘straight line method’ for granting deduction on amortization of premium on debentures. B) Assessee’s Cross Objection:- The assessee has raised five grounds in its CO however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of amortization o…