New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

30 ITR 338High Court1956#2563 most cited

What is New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

This case lays down a crucial test to distinguish between revenue expenditure (current repairs) and capital expenditure. Expenditure is considered revenue if its object is to preserve and maintain an existing asset without bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new or fresh advantage.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 30 ITR 338 · Section 32 · Section 143(3) · Section 31(i) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · current repairs test · existing asset maintenance · new asset creation · new advantage

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

revenue expenditurecapital expenditurecompanysection 143(3)indiabusiness

Judgments citing New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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)

…’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Volga Restaurant (2002) 253 ITR 405 (Del) after referring to judgement of Apex Court in Ballimal Nawal Kishore vs CIT (1937) 224 ITR 414 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spg and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (Bom). Current repairs has also been discussed by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 523 (Bom) j) Repair implies renewal or replacement of a part. As held in CIT vs India United Mills Ltd., 141 ITR 399 (Bom) CIT vs Kaira District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., 192 ITR 608 (Guj) Comfort Living Hotels (P) Ltd…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Peerless Hotels Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1869/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Acit, Circle-8(2), M/S Peerless Hotels Ltd., बनाम / P-7, Chowringhee 12, J.L.Nehru Road, V/S. Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-700 013 [Pan No.Aabcp 9484 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 14-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata Dated 08.07.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8,Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 07.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Whether Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting Depreciation To Rs.20,191/- Instead Of Rs.4,39,9000/- 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing Rs.1,03,71,530/- As Revenue Expenditu9Re Instead Of Capital Expenditure On Account Of Renovation Of Room.

Section 143(3)

…on of hotel building was eligible for deduction u/s. 30(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee in support of its claim also relied on the following judgments:- i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 ii) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52(SC) iii) CIT vs. ICI (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 139 ITR 105, 106 (Cal) Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. The AO disall…

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1013/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…) upheld the findings of Assessing Officer on the ground that the items identified provide enduring benefit to the assessee. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Sharrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 30 ITR 338 has held : “The simple test that must be constantly borne in mind is that as a result of the expenditure which is claimed as an expenditure for repairs what is really being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. The object of the expenditure is not to bring a new asset into existence, or is its object the obtaining of a new or…

Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 738/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 4(1) Office Floor 8 Mumbai I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No.Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 4(1) (1) Vs. M/S. Hdfc Securities Ltd., Mumbai Office Floor 8 I-Think Techno Campus Alpha Building, B Kanjurmarg (E) Mumbai – 400 042 Pan/Gir No. Aaach8215R Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi / Shri Vidhi Doshi Revenue By Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

…of expenditure as capital and revenue.  Empire jute Co. Ltd. v.CIT (124 ITR 1(1980) (SC)  CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Limited (66 ITR 710)(SC)  CIT V. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Lid. (214 ITR 523) (Bom)  New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd, v. CIT (1956) (30 ITR 338) (Bom)  PCIT v. Sesa Resources Ltd. (250 Taxman 182) (Bom)  CIT vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. (304 ITR 84(Mad)(HC)  Commissioner of Income-tax vs. MAC Charles (India) Lid. (60 taxmann.com 68) (Kar)  M/s. Sprang & Associates v. DCIT (ITA No. 31/Mum/2016)  Am way India Enterprises v. DCIT 27 SOT 344 (Del Trib) 16. Even decision with regard to trea…

Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 3077/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri S. S. Godara.

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Vasundhara Upmanyu, CIT. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…pital expenditure. The decisions relied upon by the appellant cannot be applied as it is to appellant's case; however, the principles laid down in the cases of Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 201 (SC), New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 30 ITR 338 (Bom) etc. have been applied while deciding the matter. To sum up, out of total expenditure of Rs.1,27,63,657/-, expenditure to the extent of Rs.60,18,069/- is held to be revenue ITA No. 3077 to 3079 & 3115 to 3120/Ahd/11 [Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd.] - 11 - expenditure and the balance amount, i.e. Rs.67,50,588/- is held to be capita…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…ed view that the said expenditure has been incurred by assessee only for the purpose of carrying out its one of the object to renovate and/or repair existing runway. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 338 (BOM.) has held that the “the expression “current repairs’ means expenditure on building, machinery, plant or furniture which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration but which is only for the purpose of preserving and maintaining an already existing asset which does not bring new asset into existence or does not give the assessee new or…

DCIT, Madurai vs. Pandyan Hotels Limited, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1020/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1020/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kurian Joseph, AdvocateFor Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 142ASection 143(3)

…ture as a revenue expenditure. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We may, to begin with, delineate the law in the matter as explained by the higher courts of law. In New Shorrock Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 338 (Bom), it was held as under: "The simple test that must be constantly borne in mind is that as a result of the expenditure which is claimed as an expenditure on repairs what is really being done is to preserve and maintain an already existing asset. The object of the expenditure is not to bring a new asset into existence, nor is its object the obt…

B & A Digi Tactical Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 304/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: 23-08-2017
Section 31Section 32Section 37

…cal Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 154 ITR 655 that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Khimji Visram and Sons (Gujarat) Private Ltd. vs. CIT 209 ITR 993 and that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. CIT 30 ITR 338. Further according to him, ld. Assessing Officer had allowed part of the claim, which was found to be Revenue in nature. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the 6. orders of the authorities below. The expenditure which has been claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure or alternatively eligible for 100% depreciation are rep…

Rohda Specialtiy Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 830/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एल ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 830/MUM/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. CIT – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly known as Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals MK Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN : AAACA3841L ITA NO. 622/MUM/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) DCIT -7(2) Vs. M/s Rhodia Specialty…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law

ITA 622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri C.N. Prasadita No. 830/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. Cit – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals Mk Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan : Aaaca3841L Ita No. 622/Mum/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit -7(2) Vs. M/S Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Room No.624, Mk Road India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020 M/S Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing 4Th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एल ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 830/MUM/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals Vs. Addl. CIT – Circle 6(1) India Ltd. (Formerly known as Room No.511, Aayakar Bhawan M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals MK Road India Ltd.), Phoenix House, A Wing New Marine Lines 4th Floor, 462 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN : AAACA3841L ITA NO. 622/MUM/2014 : (A.Y : 2009-10) DCIT -7(2) Vs. M/s Rhodia Specialty…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ot relevant to physically verify the parties. The AO relied on several case laws to substantiate his viewpoint: • Ballimal Naval Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom…

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ot relevant to physically verify the parties. The AO relied on several case laws to substantiate his viewpoint: • Ballimal Naval Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

ITO, WD-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Stoll Berg India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 310/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e ITA No.310/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 ITO Wd-11(1) Kol. vs. M/s Stoll Berg India Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 expenditure is not to bring a new asset into existence, nor is its object the obtaining of a new or fresh advantage – New Shorrock Spg. & Mfg. Co. Lt. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 338(Bom.)/R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spg. & Wvg., Mills v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 427 (Nag)/N.N. Kotak v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 18 (Bom). In CIT v. Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 523(Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that “the words ‘current repairs’ do not mean ‘petty repairs’ or repairs necessitated by wear and tear during the particular year. Pa…