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 367,154 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

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Surya Gems, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…s. 37 may, in the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a "loss" even though the said amount has not gone out from the pocket of the assessee.—Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 : (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) relied on. (Para 13) The quantum of allowances permitted to be deducted under diverse heads under ss. 30 to 43C from the income, profits and gains of a business would differ according to the system adopted. This is made clear by defining the word "paid" in s. 43(2), which is used in several ss. 35 M/s Surya Gems 30 to 43C, as meaning actual…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Equitas Holding Pvt Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1424/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1424/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Equitas Holding Pvt. Ltd., 672, 4Th Floor, Temple Towers, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aaacu9126C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ऐम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1424/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of M/s. Equitas Holding Pvt. Ltd., 672, 4th Floor, Temple Towers, Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [PAN:AAACU9126C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth,…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2496/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2496/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hidesign India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2) , Vs. Old. No. 57/4, New No. 2, Anugraha Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Apartments, 1St Street, Kamarajar Block, 121, M.G. Road, Avenue, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacch0586R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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 Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 802). 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 answered in favo…

ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai vs. Arun Excello Constructions LLP, Chennai

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

ITA 2197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2197/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Arun Excello Construction Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 11, Vs. 18, Bhattad Towers, West Cott Road, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Building, Tower Ii, 16, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaufa2577J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 16.08.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Quantify The Exempt Income & Restrict The Disallowance To The Exempt Income As The Assessee Has Not Claimed Any Exempt Income In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 4

…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 Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 802). 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 answered in favo…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Allied Gems Corporation (Bombay), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed, as above

ITA 2502/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ramlal Negithe Acit, 16(3), 2Nd Floor,Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Allied Gems Corporation (Bombay), 2505, Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai -400 004 Pan: Aaefa 7201P .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri A.Ramachandran Respondent By : Shri Jignesh A.Shah Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20 /01/2017

For Appellant: Shri A.RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Jignesh A.Shah
Section 143(3)

….4.15 In view of the Principle of Accountancy considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the plethora of cases cited (supra) including the celebrated decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers, 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Madras Industries & Investment Corporation, 225 ITR 802 (SC). I am of the considered opinion that the appellant was correct in following the principles of prudence as the sum of Rs.49,64,937/- was not ultimately realized. In any case, this loss would have to be allowed in the next year and therefore, it is only a question of timing which is in dispute. Accordingly, Ground No.1 is allowed.” 4.2 Against…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5851/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…tries made in the books of account was not relevant for the purpose of allowability under the Income-tax Act as laid down in Amar Raja batteries Ltd Vs. ACIT 85 TTJ 20(Hyd.) (iii) that in the case of Madras industrial investment Corporation limited versus CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) it was held that though the assessee has written off the expenditure in its books of accounts over a period of five years, it must be allowed in entirety in the year in which it is incurred, if it is a revenue expenditure and if it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. (iv) that once the business is set up and ready…

M/S Geo Connect Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 127/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…tries made in the books of account was not relevant for the purpose of allowability under the Income-tax Act as laid down in Amar Raja batteries Ltd Vs. ACIT 85 TTJ 20(Hyd.) (iii) that in the case of Madras industrial investment Corporation limited versus CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) it was held that though the assessee has written off the expenditure in its books of accounts over a period of five years, it must be allowed in entirety in the year in which it is incurred, if it is a revenue expenditure and if it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. (iv) that once the business is set up and ready…

DCIT Circle-12 (1) vs. Geo Connect Ltd

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2088/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…tries made in the books of account was not relevant for the purpose of allowability under the Income-tax Act as laid down in Amar Raja batteries Ltd Vs. ACIT 85 TTJ 20(Hyd.) (iii) that in the case of Madras industrial investment Corporation limited versus CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) it was held that though the assessee has written off the expenditure in its books of accounts over a period of five years, it must be allowed in entirety in the year in which it is incurred, if it is a revenue expenditure and if it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. (iv) that once the business is set up and ready…

Geo Convest Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-12 (1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1927/DEL/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

…tries made in the books of account was not relevant for the purpose of allowability under the Income-tax Act as laid down in Amar Raja batteries Ltd Vs. ACIT 85 TTJ 20(Hyd.) (iii) that in the case of Madras industrial investment Corporation limited versus CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC) it was held that though the assessee has written off the expenditure in its books of accounts over a period of five years, it must be allowed in entirety in the year in which it is incurred, if it is a revenue expenditure and if it is wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. (iv) that once the business is set up and ready…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…rther, expenditure incurred by the assessee on such BOT projects had brought an enduring benefit in the form of right to collect the fares during the period of the agreement. The Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 802, allowed spreading over of liability over a number of years on the ground that there was a continuing benefit to the company over a period, Therefore, analogously, expenditure incurred on an infrastructure project for development of Metro rail under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purpose of business or professio…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aptech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1271/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 946/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

Aptech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 723/MUM/2013[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Apatech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1228/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

ACIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Apatech Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1227/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 & 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S C Tiwari and Rutuja N
Section 14ASection 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND RAJESH KUMAR,(AM) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.946 and 723/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s Aptech Limited, बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(1), A-65 MIDC, Marol, Vs. R No.260-C, 2nd floor, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400093 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1227 and 1228/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 and 2008-09) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Inc…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rose Advertising P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2827/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…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 802allowed 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 professi…

Rose Advertising Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2293/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

…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 802allowed 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 professi…

Director of Ncome Tax-1 vs. M/S Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

ITA/565/2016HC Delhi28 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 194

…2 advance rent, in Durga Das Khanna v CIT 1969 (72) ITR 796 as well as other decisions, such as Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1955] 27 ITR 34 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC). However, in respect of amounts clearly reserved as rent (generally 1% of the total consideration, payable annually) the payments are clearly rent and not capital. In respect of such amounts too, the petitioners were liable to deduct TDS from the payments made to GNOIDA. This view is also reinforced by the Income Tax Circular No. 35/201…

ACIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Aakash Lavlesh Leisure P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5339/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7905/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Ito -9(1)(1), बनाम/ Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan V. Juhu Club Millenium Mumbai-400020 A-1, Gulmohar Road Jvpd Scheme, Juhu Mumbai-400 049

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rs and therefore advance membership fee should be taxed equally each year spread over the period of 25 years. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not applying the ratio of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. , 225 ITR 802(SC) allowing similar spread over. 5. Without prejudice it is prayed that the advance Membership fee of Rs. 4,18,96,537/- may be taxed equally each year by spreading over the period of membership of 25 years.” The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter calle…