National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1236 ITR 577(Cal)

207 ITR 553High Court1994#11295 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(1)section 14a(2)section 40(a)(ia)disallowance u/s 14a section 144c revenue expenditure section 40 section 14a section 144 section 143 prescribed company

Judgments citing National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1236 ITR 577(Cal)

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited CTS No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAACF 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue by : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: Both these appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to A…

DCIT (CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Q, MUMBAI

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

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

…ed 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 question whether the assessee has earned any profit or suffered any loss. In his regard, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Co…

DCIT CENT. CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S 63 MOON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1515/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: M/s. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 250

…he respective year on pro- rata basis. The decision relied upon are as under:- i) Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs CIT 225 ITR 802(SC); ii) National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 1236 ITR 577(Cal); iii) CIT vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553; iv) 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 question whether the assessee has earned any profit or suffered any loss. In his regard, decision of Hon‟ble Suprem…

63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIR. - 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4775/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A.KariaFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 40Section 92C

…TR 802 (SC), the High Court held that the liability should be spread over the period of the debentures as was held in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd, Vs.. CIT (1999) 236ITR 577 (Cal). In the case of CIT vs. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 553, it was held that where debentures were redeemable at a premium on expiry of certain nos. of years after allotment, debenture premium was held to be allowable as revenue expenditure. In the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd, v. CIT the Question was whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in…

ORACLE GRANITO LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 745/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 80I

…g charges of ROC for increase in the authorized capital is nothing but a capital expenditure. This proposition has been upheld by catena of judgments as already relied upon by the Learned AO. Further that, in the judgment of CIT-vs-Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553 (1994) categorically held that fees paid for increasing authorized capital is a capital expenditure. Thus, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s 35D of the Act. Further that, the judgment passed in the matter of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.-vs-CIT 225 ITR 792(SC) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the i…

ORACLE GRANITO LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 744/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 80I

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit from the taxable value of fringe benefit. Ground No. 7 is accordingly allowed

ITA 5057/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5057/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcitcent. Circle-1(4), Room No.902, M/S. Grasim Industries Limited 9Th Floor,Old Cgo Building. M.K. Road Corporate Finance Division, Aditya Birla Church Gate,Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A-Wing, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sk Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Pan:Aaacg 4464 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Vidyadhar- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ronak G. Doshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017 लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd.30.07.2015 Of The Cit(A)-13,Mumbai,The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Filed The Fringe Benefit Tax(Fbt) On 29/09/2009,Showing Value Of Chargeable Fringe Benefit (Fb) At Rs.36.80 Crores.In The Return It Had Offered Various Expenses As Chargeable To Fbt.But,By Way Of A Note It Claimed That Fbt Was Payable On Such Expenditure.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.115We(3)Of The Act,On 17.10.2011,Determining The Value Of The Chargeable Fb At Rs. 36,80,51,213/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vidyadhar- DR

Section 115W

…the Counsel that the insurance premium is not the expense on repair, running and maintenance of motor car/aircraft and therefore not liable for fringe benefit. 20. We find that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553 has held that the expenditure incurred on repairs and insurance of car cannot be considered for disallowance u/s. 37(3A) of the Act. Taking a leaf out of the aforementioned decision, we direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit of Rs. 4,70,334/- from the taxable value of fringe benefit. Ground No. 4 is accordingly allowed. 21. Ground…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/158/2006HC Delhi27 Oct 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

…sition, we find support from the judgment of apex court in the case of E.D. Sasoon & Company Ltd. & Others Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC).” 6. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Tungabharda Industries Ltd., 207 ITR 553 (Cal). In that case the Court has categorically held that the expenditure incurred in respect of debentures was revenue expenditure and the liability to pay premium arose at the expiry of the 7th year from the date of the allotment and there was no liability to pay the premium at all if the debentures were re-purchased under the buy-back cla…