What is Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payments for obtaining a monopoly or an absolute right are capital expenditures, while recurring consideration paid for the use of something is revenue expenditure.

How many judgments cite Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (3 SCC 143), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 35ABB, Section 37(1).

Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (3 SCC 143)

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…er section 37 of the Act. 26. It is settled law that recurring consideration paid for use cannot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 2…

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. M/S Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4966/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…er section 37 of the Act. 26. It is settled law that recurring consideration paid for use cannot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 2…

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4960/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…er section 37 of the Act. 26. It is settled law that recurring consideration paid for use cannot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 2…

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Bharti Telemedia Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4868/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

…er section 37 of the Act. 26. It is settled law that recurring consideration paid for use cannot be equated to price paid for acquisition of any asset and thus, the fees paid will be treated as revenue expenditure [refer Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1973] 3 SCC 143, Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 3 Taxman 69 (SC), Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT 59 ITR 718 (SC)]. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the annual variable licence fee paid by the assessee with reference to adjusted gross revenue for the year is clearly allowable revenue expenditure. Without prejudice- full amortization under section 35ABB in same year 2…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kesoram Idustries Limited

ITA/1/2014HC Calcutta06 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 6Th May 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Ankan Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Advocate. … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sm. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By Order Dated 31St July 2013 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law:- “Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Order Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax, 1961?”

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…se of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. We would, therefore, uphold the view of the majority and dismiss the appeal with costs." 17. In the case of M/s. S. Ganga Saran and Sons (P) Ltd. Calcutta vs. ITO and others, (1981) 3 SCC 143 (Para-6), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "6. It is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court that two distinct conditions must be satisfied before the Income Tax Officer can assume jurisdiction to issue notice under section 147 (a). First, he must have reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment…

K R Packaging (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-5(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 71/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 71/DEL/2021 [A.Y. 2003-04] K.R. Packaging (P) Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T D – 1, Pandav Nagar, Circle – 5(1) Near Mother Diary, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCK 2506 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the or…

Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8094/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2011-12] M/s Lakhmi Chand Tejoo Mal Vs. The A.C.I.T. 879, Kucha Kabil Atttar Circle 47(1) Chandni Chowk, Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAAFL3353 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 04.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2021 Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Revenue by : Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commi…

M/S Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commmissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…years is time barred in case of no failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose facts 17. CIT vs Foramer France [129 Taxman 72] (Supreme Court) 18. CIT vs Corporation Bank Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (Supreme Court) S Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt Ltd vs ITO & Ors 3 SCC 143 (1981) 19. (Supreme Court) Supreme Traverse (P) Ltd vs CIT & U013231TR 323 (2009) (Bombay 20. High Court) Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs CIT 308 ITR 38 (2009) 21. (Delhi High Court) Gujarat Ginning & Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT 108 ITR 674 (1977) (Gujarat High 22. Court) Modepro India Private Limited vs DCIT (2010 — TIOL — 325 — ITAT- 23. MUM) (Mum…

O.P.Yadav, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circ Le-15, New Delhi

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

ITA 5523/DEL/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2000-01

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5523/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2000-01 Shri O.P. Yadav, Vs. DCIT, D-84, Anand Niketan, Central Circle -15, New Delhi New Delhi. PAN :AAAPY2870L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 02.09.2020 Date of pronouncement 10.09.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 17/05/2018 passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals)-42, New Delhi [in short ‘…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…e Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 106 CTR (Bom) 78 ; (1993) (199 ITR 4 I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 351, 367) (Bom) and (iii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) (203 ITR 415) (Raj). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baby Samuel vs. Asstt, CIT (2003) 184 CTR (Bom) 140 : (2003) (262 ITR 385) (Bom) has held that when an issue was not specifically taken in the memorandum and grounds of appeal but mentioned in the written submissions filed before the Tribunal and specifically argued at the time of the final h…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…e Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 106 CTR (Bom) 78 ; (1993) (199 ITR 4 I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 351, 367) (Bom) and (iii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) (203 ITR 415) (Raj). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baby Samuel vs. Asstt, CIT (2003) 184 CTR (Bom) 140 : (2003) (262 ITR 385) (Bom) has held that when an issue was not specifically taken in the memorandum and grounds of appeal but mentioned in the written submissions filed before the Tribunal and specifically argued at the time of the final h…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…e Bombay High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 106 CTR (Bom) 78 ; (1993) (199 ITR 4 I.T.A. Nos. 487-489/Coch/2019 351, 367) (Bom) and (iii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) (203 ITR 415) (Raj). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baby Samuel vs. Asstt, CIT (2003) 184 CTR (Bom) 140 : (2003) (262 ITR 385) (Bom) has held that when an issue was not specifically taken in the memorandum and grounds of appeal but mentioned in the written submissions filed before the Tribunal and specifically argued at the time of the final h…