Mills Ltd. 275 ITR 403(Madras); CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. 99 Taxman 575 (SC); CIT v. Manohar Lal Him Ltd.

226 ITR 230High Court1997#20033 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Mills Ltd. 275 ITR 403(Madras); CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. 99 Taxman 575 (SC); CIT v. Manohar Lal Him Ltd.

THE DY CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 8952/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 40Section 80I

…t of enduring nature. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that these expenses should be allowed as revenue expenses. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) CIT vs. V.P Veriah (211 ITR 244)(Ker) (b) CIT vs. Venkateswara Hatchery Ltd (226 ITR 230)(Mad) (c) CIT vs. Himalaya Drug Co (234 ITR 167)(All) (d) CIT vs. Binny Ltd (215 ITR 536)(Mad) The Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 11.2 On a perusal of the nature of expenses discussed above, we notice that the expenses mentioned in (a) and (b) above did not bring any new asset, i.e., existing structures have been modified or re…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METSO MINERALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…illed. CIT vs Kusum Products Ltd. (1989) 175 ITR 557 (Cal). Permali Wallace Ltd. vs CIT (1S85) 151 ITR 43(MP). Gurnarain Khanna & Sons vs CIT (1986) i£9 ITR 231 (Del) CIT vs Zafar Bhai Akbar AM & Bros (1895) 211 ITR 496 (Bom) CIT vs Jawahar Mills Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 230 (Mad) CIT vs Laxmi Talkies (2005) 275 ITR 125 (Guj) CIT vs Dr A M Singhvi (2008) 302 ITR 26 (Raj) n) In the present case, the Assessing Officer has arbitrarily picked up the items amounting to Rs.72,94,797/- and has treated the same as capital expenditure. However, nature and character of each item reveals that it is in the nature of repair, mai…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7384/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A.7384/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3(3)(1) M/S. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan:Aaacr1789G

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia-ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ITR 523(Bom); CIT v. Saravana Sp. Mills (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 201215293 IT'R 201(SC); CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. 275 ITR 403(Madras); CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. 99 Taxman 575 (SC); CIT v. Manohar Lal Him Ltd. 219 Taxman 161; CIT v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 226 ITR 230 - Madras High Court. In View of the above, the expenditure of Rs.32,54,413/- made by the appellant company is treated as revenue expenditure. Thus, the addition of Rs.30,75,581/- made by the AO is deleted. Aggrieved Revenue is in second appeal before Tribunal 4. We find that the assessee has carried repair to the existing factory building at Vap…

DCIT CIR 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHIROOP RUBBER INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and that of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 1725/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Rishiroop Rubber International Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaacr1789G Appellant .. Respondent M/S Rishiroop Rubber International Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(3)(1), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, 65, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaacr1789G Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri B.S. Bist, Sr. Dr Assessee By .. Shri Jayesh Dedia, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 15-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14A