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

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 470/ASR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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…

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

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

ITA 417/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…

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

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

ITA 294/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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…

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

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

ITA 293/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

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…

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

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

ITA 292/ASR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

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…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

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

ITA 291/ASR/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

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…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

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

ITA 290/ASR/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

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…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S Fill Industries, Srinagar

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

ITA 289/ASR/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2002-03

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…

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

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

ITA 255/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

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…

Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 6632/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…was submitted that in March 2007 the holding company was advised that the premium should be claimed on a pro rata basis during the tenure of debentures. This was based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial investment Corporation ltd. 225 ITR 802. Further, the new ICDS notified on 29.09.2016 also stated that discount/ premium is a part of borrowing cost and should be amortised during the tenure of the borrowing. As a result of these facts the appellant due to the decision of the holding company was eligible to claim the proportionate amount of debentures premium which pertained to 01.02.2…

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 6423/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…was submitted that in March 2007 the holding company was advised that the premium should be claimed on a pro rata basis during the tenure of debentures. This was based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial investment Corporation ltd. 225 ITR 802. Further, the new ICDS notified on 29.09.2016 also stated that discount/ premium is a part of borrowing cost and should be amortised during the tenure of the borrowing. As a result of these facts the appellant due to the decision of the holding company was eligible to claim the proportionate amount of debentures premium which pertained to 01.02.2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…uch expenditure is 'revenue', yet the benefits there from are 'presumed' to arise over a period of time (stretching sometimes over several accounting years). The concept was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Services 225 ITR 802. The case related to discount on debentures. The Supreme Court held that the discount had to be amortized over the life of the debentures, in view of the continuing relationship between the debentures and discount vis a vis the company. To classify expenditure as deferred revenue expenses the benefits derived there from should be ephemeral arid t…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…uch expenditure is 'revenue', yet the benefits there from are 'presumed' to arise over a period of time (stretching sometimes over several accounting years). The concept was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Services 225 ITR 802. The case related to discount on debentures. The Supreme Court held that the discount had to be amortized over the life of the debentures, in view of the continuing relationship between the debentures and discount vis a vis the company. To classify expenditure as deferred revenue expenses the benefits derived there from should be ephemeral arid t…

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 14A

…a deduction against profits. Certain case laws have been referred for the proposition that interest premium can be claimed in the respective year on pro-rata basis. The decision relied upon are as under: 1. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 225 ITR 802(SC) 2. National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 1236 ITR 577(Cal) 3. CIT vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553 4, Taparia Tools, 260 ITR 102(Bom) Further the submission, as regards the different treatment in books of accounts and income tax computation is that entries made by the assessee in books of accounts are not determinative of the…

T. Sheshagiri Rao, Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3, Hyderabad vs. Mytrah Wind Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 758/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Mytrah Wind Developers Private Limited, Ward – 16(3), Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaicm1274H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr 28.12.2022 Date Of Hearing: Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sing officer in the Assessment order are not applicable and therefore distinguishable. The Appellant wishes to bring to the notice of the Honourable Tribunal the decision of the supreme court in Madras Industrial Investment corporation limited vs CIT reported 225 ITR 802 clearly stated that in some exceptional cases it can justify the spreading of the expenditure and claiming it over a period of ensuing years. It is important to know that in the aforesaid judgement it was the Asses see who wanted spreading the expenditure over a period of time and justified the same. The court found that the Asses see would still…

Lifecell International Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…esent case is even on a stronger footing inasmuch as not only the had arisen in the assessment year in question, it was even quantified and discharged as well in that very accounting year. 16. 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…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6th floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAACH 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, CIT-DR/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, DR Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AR : Date of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 28/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by th…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Now Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1657/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee was not required to incur the same year to year and accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. 50. The ld.CIT(A) upheld order of the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 from which he noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that there was a continuous benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., 260 ITR 102 taking the same view. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at page 40 para 21.2 – 21.5 o…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee was not required to incur the same year to year and accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. 50. The ld.CIT(A) upheld order of the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 from which he noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that there was a continuous benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., 260 ITR 102 taking the same view. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at page 40 para 21.2 – 21.5 o…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1747/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sessee was not required to incur the same year to year and accordingly treated the same as capital expenditure. 50. The ld.CIT(A) upheld order of the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 from which he noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that there was a continuous benefit to the business of the company over the entire period. He further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., 260 ITR 102 taking the same view. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at page 40 para 21.2 – 21.5 o…