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 153A Section 147 Section 153C Section 132 Section 14A Section 263

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefit section 32(1)revenue expenditure intangible assets section 32 capital expenditure section 35 commercial expediency section 30 book profits amalgamation mercantile system of accounting

Judgments citing Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Ksrtc Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 374/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

…principle for the year as application of income cannot be said to be not in accordance with the accounting standards. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 802 wherein Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “The Tribunal, however, held that since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature…

M/S. Ksrtc Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

…principle for the year as application of income cannot be said to be not in accordance with the accounting standards. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 802 wherein Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “The Tribunal, however, held that since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in that accounting year. This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 999/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 998/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1528/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai City vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1526/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

M/S Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1525/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1523/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1522/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1521/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Andhra Pradesh Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1000/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

Section 32(1)(ii)

…High Court in the case of M/s. North Karnataka Expressway Limited ITA. No.499 of 2012 dated 14th October, 2014 read with CBDT Circular No.09/2014 dated 23.04.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [225 ITR 802 (SC)], the assessee is the ‘Owner’ of the road constructed by it on “Build, Operate and Transfer” (BOT) basis under agreement with NHAI.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee Shri Ajay Vohra submitted that assessee’s ground no. 1 is general and ground no. 3 is pre-mature, therefore not pressed. So therefore, only groun…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes on the afore-said terms of earlier year

ITA 6386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6386/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ald Automotive Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 13, Floor, Maker 400020. Chamber-Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca0924K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 25.07.2017 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That This Is A Second Round Before This Tribunal. In The First Round, The Tribunal Has Passed Order (Ita. No.6386/Mum/2017) By Order Dated 10.04.2019 Wherein The Tribunal Had Adjudicated Ground No. 1 Preferred By The Revenue. But Did Not Adjudicate Ground No. 2 Preferred By Revenue. Therefore, The Revenue Preferred Miscellaneous Application (Ma) No. 573/Mum/2019 Which Was Decided On 02.06.2021, Wherein Tribunal Was Pleased To Recall The Order Passed In The First Round Dated 10.04.2019 For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2. Thus, This Appeal Has Come Up For Hearing For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2 Which Reads As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)

…m – as indicated by the corresponding expenditure, the accounting treatment is in consonance with AS-9. The assessee’s reliance on the decisions in Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC) and Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), both advocating the matching principle, is apposite. The AO shall cause necessary verification as indicated above, subject to whose findings of fact we allow the assessee’s claim. We may further add that the assessee’s plea is acceptable only qua such expenditure which is subject to, in the normal course of events, an increase with time, i.…

Microsec Resources Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C-2(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Paul, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…sis, discount on DDDs is being written off by the issuer. b. Discount on DDDs is an expense in the hands of the Issuer Company and this principle has been clearly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial investment Corporation Ltd. 225 ITR 802 (SC), copy of which was duly provided to the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly established that such discount on DDDs has to be allowed over the tenure of the DDDs.” 2.3.In the course of assessment, Ld. AO disallowed this claim by holding that it is covered u/s. 40A(2) since the relation between the assessee and the debent…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhaprtnam vs. Fluentgrid Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.62/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Fluentgrid Limited, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AABCP 9099 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri GVN Hari, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by : S…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pfizer Limited v. ACIT- Special Range 23 (Earlier known as Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now the DCIT-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 PAN: AAACP3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT- LTU v. M/s. Wyeth Limited 28th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly known as wyeth Lederle Ltd) RBC Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumb…

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata. vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie and Co Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA, ARFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…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 infrastructure project for development of roads/highways under BOT agreement may be treated as having been made/incurred for the purpose…

DCIT-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5653/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 80Section 92

…e non-compete fees and hence, the relevant expenditure by way of non-compete fees should have been spread over the period of the benefit in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. C1T [225 ITR 802 (SC)]. 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.22,08,494/- being the employees' stock option expenses claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that no such option was exercised by the assessee during the relevant previous year. 3. (a)The C1T(A) erred in directing the A.O. to grant the assessee deduction u/s.SOHHE in…

Vodafone Essar Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 216/CHANDI/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 115JSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80I

…should be allowed on proportionate basis i.e. allowed to be amortized over the period of lease. To support his contention, the ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 (SC) (ii)Hindustan Aluminum Corporation vs. CIT, 144 ITR 474 (Cal). (iii)First Leasing Company of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 292 ITR 110 (Mad) 11. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer on this issue. The ld. Departmental Representative countering the proposition to treat the expenditure as…

M/S Vodafone Essar Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1173/CHANDI/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 216/ चंडी/2011 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं. 1173/चांडी /2011 (िन.व. 2007-08) Vodafone India Ltd. (Formerly Known As ‘ Vodafone Essar Limited’) Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaach-5332-B बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -1, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Chandigarh. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Kapoor With S/Shri Vibhu Jain & Ninad Patade ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor with S/Shri Vibhu Jain and Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 115JSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80I

…should be allowed on proportionate basis i.e. allowed to be amortized over the period of lease. To support his contention, the ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 (SC) (ii)Hindustan Aluminum Corporation vs. CIT, 144 ITR 474 (Cal). (iii)First Leasing Company of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 292 ITR 110 (Mad) 11. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer on this issue. The ld. Departmental Representative countering the proposition to treat the expenditure as…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Fil Industries Ltd, Srinagar

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

ITA 471/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)Section 80I

…unable to persuade ourselves by the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. An identical argument was taken by the Revenue in IFCI (supra). Explaining the ratio of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC), the argument of the Revenue was rejected in the following manner : "The judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Revenue would be of no avail in the instant case. The learned counsel for the Revenue had strongly argued that matching concept is to be applied, as per which part of the expenditure had to be deferre…