(P.) Ltd. v. CIT

56 ITR 52Supreme Court of India1965#697 most cited

What is (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is revenue if incurred for operating a business to earn profit, even if an incidental enduring advantage results; it is capital if it creates an asset or an enduring advantage for the entire business structure.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bombay Steam Navigation Co. v. CIT · 56 ITR 52 · Supreme Court · 1965 · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit · Section 37(1) · profits and gains of business or profession · deductibility of business expenses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 132Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

enduring benefitsection 92bsection 17capital expenditurerevenue expendituresection 37(1)transfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisesprofits and gains of business or professionsection 37associated enterprisedispute resolution panel

Judgments citing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1340/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ness, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Therefore, in our considered view, the ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 27 arguments of the revenue that since the structures created by the assessee last for more than one year and gives enduring benefit and thus, should be treated as capital expenditure, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 14. The assessee has relied upon the decision…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1339/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ness, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Therefore, in our considered view, the ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 27 arguments of the revenue that since the structures created by the assessee last for more than one year and gives enduring benefit and thus, should be treated as capital expenditure, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 14. The assessee has relied upon the decision…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1338/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ness, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Therefore, in our considered view, the ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 27 arguments of the revenue that since the structures created by the assessee last for more than one year and gives enduring benefit and thus, should be treated as capital expenditure, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 14. The assessee has relied upon the decision…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1337/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ness, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Therefore, in our considered view, the ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 27 arguments of the revenue that since the structures created by the assessee last for more than one year and gives enduring benefit and thus, should be treated as capital expenditure, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 14. The assessee has relied upon the decision…

NUZIVEEDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1336/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ness, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC). Therefore, in our considered view, the ITA Nos.1336 to 1340/Hyd/2025 27 arguments of the revenue that since the structures created by the assessee last for more than one year and gives enduring benefit and thus, should be treated as capital expenditure, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. 14. The assessee has relied upon the decision…

VERMEIREN INDIA REHAB PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 1315/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1315/Hyd./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Vermeiren India Rehab The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Private Limited, TIRUPATI PIN – 517 646. vs. TIRUPATI. State of Andhra Pradesh. PAN AADCV9010H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri Sandeep Bagmar R, Advocate For Revenue : MS. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR rel…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR rel…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR rel…

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…021] 123  taxmann.com 255 [Bangalore - Trib] [30/09/2020]  CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co Ltd., 223 ITR 112 ITA Nos.619 to 622/Bang/2025 Page 22 of 26  Sassoon J David it Co., [P] Ltd., Vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261  M/s. Bombay Steam Navigation Company, reported in 56 ITR 52  CIT Vs. Abhoyjan Tea Estate [P] Ltd. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR rel…

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ases, inter alia: • CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) • India Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Private Ltd. vs CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC), wherein it was held that: ‘…If the outgoing or expenditure is so related to the carrying on or conduct of the business, that it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, th…

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ases, inter alia: • CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) • India Cements Ltd vs CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Private Ltd. vs CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC), wherein it was held that: ‘…If the outgoing or expenditure is so related to the carrying on or conduct of the business, that it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process and not for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character, the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, th…

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…se, permitted as an allowance interest paid on capital 18 ITA.No.467/Hyd./2025 borrowed for the purposes of the business; and the capital, in this context, means money and not any other asset purchased on credit [Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, 56 ITR 52 (SC)]. (iii) The phrase "for the purpose of business" The expression "for the purpose of business" occurs in Section 36(1)(iii) and also in Section 37(1). A similar expression with different wording also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads as "for the purpose of making or earning income". This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme C…

DIEBOLD NIXDORF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIEBOLD SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6136/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Sr. No. Particulars 1 M/s. BBG Metal Syndicate Private Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.112/CTK/2022) (Cuttack – Trib.) 2 Nirakar Security and Consultancy Services Private Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 98/CTK/2022) (Cuttack – Trib.) 3 Bombay Steam Navigation Co. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) 4 CIT vs. Aspinwal & Co. (Travancore) Ltd. [1992] 62 Taxman 254 (Kerala HC) 5 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 803 (Kerala HC) 6 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 419 (SC) 5. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) submitted, once the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, th…

DIEBOLD NIXDORF INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6135/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ea)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…Sr. No. Particulars 1 M/s. BBG Metal Syndicate Private Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.112/CTK/2022) (Cuttack – Trib.) 2 Nirakar Security and Consultancy Services Private Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 98/CTK/2022) (Cuttack – Trib.) 3 Bombay Steam Navigation Co. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) 4 CIT vs. Aspinwal & Co. (Travancore) Ltd. [1992] 62 Taxman 254 (Kerala HC) 5 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 803 (Kerala HC) 6 CIT vs. High Land Produce Co. Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 419 (SC) 5. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) submitted, once the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, th…

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…erest paid on capital borrowed for the purposes Kiri Industries Limited vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 11– of the business; and the capital, in this context, means money and not any other asset purchased on credit [Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pr. Ltd. v. CIT, 56 ITR 52(SC)]. iii. The phrase "for the purpose of business" The expression "for the purpose of business occurs in Section 36(1) (iii) and also in Section 37(1). A similar expression with different wording also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads as "for the purpose of making or earning income". This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Cour…

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 190/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ure. This Court considered whether the expenditure so incurred was business expenditure or whether it was capital expenditure. This Court quoted with approval the observations of Shah, J. in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1965 56 ITR 52 at 59) that whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commercial trading. The question must be viewed i the larger context of business necessity or expediency. If the outgoing or expend…

ALLCARGO GATI LIMITED(FORMALLY KNOWN AS GATI LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1721/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ure. This Court considered whether the expenditure so incurred was business expenditure or whether it was capital expenditure. This Court quoted with approval the observations of Shah, J. in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1965 56 ITR 52 at 59) that whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and by the application of principles of commercial trading. The question must be viewed i the larger context of business necessity or expediency. If the outgoing or expend…

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

…t for acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character the possession of which is a condition of the carrying on of the business, the expenditure may be regarded as revenue expenditure. See Bombay Steam Navigation Co. [1953] (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC). The same test was formulated by Lord Clyde, in Robert Addie & Sons Collieries Ltd. v. Inland Revenue 8 TC 671, in these words: "Is it part of the company's working expenses, is it expenditure laid out as part of the process of profit earning? ; or, on the other hand, is it a capital outlay?, is it expenditure necessary for the acquisition of…

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT(IT) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

…of the business", it is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In view of the, said finding and also in view of the, decision of this Court in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. [1953] (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion. The decision in Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) also pertains to amalgamation of two shipping companies. The assessee company took over the assets of the other company and part of the price was treated as a loan secured by a promissory note and hypothe…

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...