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

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 737/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng year 2009-10 (A.Y 2010-11), 7. The authorities below failed to see that the appellant's treatment of the expenditure on spread over basis finds full support in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal b…

Express Publications (Madurai)Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-II(1), Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 730/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng year 2009-10 (A.Y 2010-11), 7. The authorities below failed to see that the appellant's treatment of the expenditure on spread over basis finds full support in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal b…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Express Publications(Madurai) Private Limited, Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.730/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.737/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.754/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Dcit P. Ltd. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) बनाम/ C/O. Sri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate Chennai. Vs. 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) P. Corporate Circle-Ii(1) Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Chennai C/O. Sri T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate 384 (Old No.196) Lloyds Road, Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-0842-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng year 2009-10 (A.Y 2010-11), 7. The authorities below failed to see that the appellant's treatment of the expenditure on spread over basis finds full support in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (1999) 225 ITR 802 (SC) followed by the Ahmedabad B Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Amtrex Applications Ltd (2005) 94 TT J (Ahd) 396 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A' in ACIT vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd reported in (2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi). 8 .In the light of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions cited the appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal b…

Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 177 / 2024HC Delhi13 Mar 2024

…od of the lump sum premium paid for use of land for business purposes and hence Revenue Expenditure? g. Did not the Tribunal err in law in not following the judgment of the High Court in Madars Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd vs. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802, CIT vs. Gemini Arts P. Ltd reported in 254 ITR 201. And JCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd reported in 227 CTR (Guj) 206 while disallowing the amortization of lease premium? h. Whether the Tribunal erred in not following the principle of consistency from year to year laid down in the case of Radhasaomi Satsang vs. CIT(193ITR 321@3…

Siel Ltd vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1)

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

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 115J

…ed against the share premium account. However, for Income tax purposes, this amount has been claimed as a deductible expenditure. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation 225 ITR 802. 33. Contentions of the assessee were dismissed and addition of Rs. 6,43,000/- was made. 34. We find that the decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [supra] apply on the facts of the case in as much as in that case, it was held that the discount was expenditure allowable u/s 37 of the Act and it should be allowed as…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi with Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar&
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…lowing the said sum of Rs.18,88,103/- towards discount on issue of Euro notes. We find that the action of the assessee is exactly in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation reported in 225 ITR 802. Accordingly, ground No.3 raised by the revenue is dismissed.” In the impugned assessment order the Assessing Officer has disallowed discount on issue of Euro Notes merely for the reasons that the Department has not accepted the order of CIT(A) on this issue in Assessment Year 2006-07 and has preferred appeal. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench has up…

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

ITA 1582/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)

…'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1983] 144 ITR 474 (Kol.) and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) to supplement the assessee's argument that where the revenue expenditure incurred is of a considerable magnitude and its benefit can be spread over a number of years, the same has to be allowed on a deferred basis over the period of benefit thereof. It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that the said expenditure was incurred 9 Indi…

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Thermal Epc Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4135/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Hindustan Thermal Epc Circle-11(2), Company Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 616A, (16A, Sixth Floor), Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcd7323D

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35A

…re not claimed as deduction but were carried as inventories for the same were not utilized during the year. 5. We find that the Id. AO had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd reported in 225 ITR 802 (SC) to conclude that the assessee ought to have spread the incurrence of expenditure over the period of the contract as revenues were sought to be earned by the assessee in the future years. It is pertinent to note that in that case, it was the assessee who had sought for amortization of expenditure over different years and hence the Hon'ble Sup…

Indiabullas Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

ITA 821/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…e of section 37 of the Act. Our attention has been invited to the findings recorded by the tribunal in paragraphs 9.2.7 to 9.2.8 of the tribunal and reliance has been placed on decisions in 'Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 340/225 ITR 802 (SC), CIT v. Woodward Governor (India) (P.) Ltd., [2009] 179 Taxman 326/312 ITR 254 (SC). It is also urged that discount on issue of ESOPs is only a form of compensation paid to the employee and if not a short capital receipt. It is also urged that deduction of discount on ESOP over the vesting period is in accordance with the accounting in the b…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Tapir Construction Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2145/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. M/S. Tapir Constructions Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor M-62 & 63, 1St Floor Air India Building Connaught Place Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 New Delhi – 110001, New Delhi Pan: Aaect9858L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation (supra), which has also been relied upon by the CIT(A). The relevant paragraphs of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reads as under:- "15. Judgment in Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802/91 Taxman 340 (SC) was cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue to justify the decision taken by the courts below. We find that the Court categorically held even in that case that the general principle is that ordinarily revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed in the year in which it is…

Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaecp5982F Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath,Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath,CIT(DR)
Section 36Section 36(1)

…ITA No 477 of 2023 Pennar Industries Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAECP5982F Assessee by: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate Revenue by: Shri CH V Gopinath,CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 09/11/2023 Date of pronouncement: 22/11/2023 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2023 of the lea…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4600/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 3606/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 4600/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Vs. Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (A…

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 3606/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 3606/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 4600/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Vs. Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (A…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. 9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7477/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 3606/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 4600/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Vs. Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (A…

9X Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 14ASection 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 3606/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 4600/MUM/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) M/s 9x Media P Ltd. Room No. 439, 1st Floor, Urmi corporate Park, Solaris-D, Aayakar Bhavan, L&T Gate No. 6, M.K. Marg, Vs. Saki Vihar road, Powai, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (A…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…of 12.61 crores. 7. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim in respect of one fifth of the amount paid on maturity of FCCBs, amounting to Rs.22,29,068, which is claimed in line with the Supreme Court decision in case of Madras Industrial 225 ITR 802 (SC). 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the claim for deduction of machinery hire charges of Rs. 2,17,75,428. ITA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd 9. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 80(IA) at Rs.35,71,80,349 in respect of the power plant, erroneously observing as under: a.…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…e of section 37 of the Act. Our attention has been invited to the findings recorded by the tribunal in paragraphs 9.2.7 to 9.2.8 of the tribunal and reliance has been placed on decisions in 'Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 340/225 ITR 802 (SC), CIT v. Woodward Governor (India) (P.) Ltd., [2009] 179 Taxman 326/312 ITR 254 (SC). It is also urged that discount on issue of ESOPs is only a form of compensation paid to the employee & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 and if not a short capital receipt. It is also urged that deduction of discount on ESOP over the v…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…e of section 37 of the Act. Our attention has been invited to the findings recorded by the tribunal in paragraphs 9.2.7 to 9.2.8 of the tribunal and reliance has been placed on decisions in 'Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 91 Taxman 340/225 ITR 802 (SC), CIT v. Woodward Governor (India) (P.) Ltd., [2009] 179 Taxman 326/312 ITR 254 (SC). It is also urged that discount on issue of ESOPs is only a form of compensation paid to the employee & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 and if not a short capital receipt. It is also urged that deduction of discount on ESOP over the v…

Express Infrastructure Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2854/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Express Infrastructure (P) Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of No. 2, Express Estates, Vs. Income Tax, Club House Road, Mount Road, Company Circle 2-(1), Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aabce-5521-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2023 : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 24Section 24bSection 250(6)

…Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Tamilnadu Petro-products Ltd (2016) 46 CCH 0068 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal, while following the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 802, held that the redemption by pre-payment closure for a premium at the rate of 10% was a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) as the liability was incurred by the assessee for its business purposes. :- 7 -: 10.8 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Guardian Ltd (222 CTR 0526), held as follows; “17.1. The assessee’s cla…

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…g the claim for deduction of Rs. 1, 84,078/- in respect of proportionate premium paid on leasehold land over the period of the lease, as per the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited vs CIT (225 ITR 802). X INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D 10.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that section 234D has been Inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1 June, 2003 and accordingly, interest under the said section could not be levied in respect o…