(P.) Ltd. v. CIT

56 ITR 52Supreme Court of India1965#693 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 366,470 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

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1996/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-1(1)(1) Vs. M/S Chemical & Ferro 579, Aaykar Bhavan, Alloys Private Limited M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Liberty Mumbai – 400020 Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacc4508N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143Section 143(2)

…P a g e | 1 ACIT-1(1)(1) vs. M/s Chemical and Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT-1(1)(1) Vs. M/s Chemical and Ferro 579, Aaykar Bhavan, Alloys Private Limited M.K. Road, 3rd Floor, Liberty Mumbai – 400020 Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACC4508N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sanjay Parikh Respondent by : H.M. Bhatt Date of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E…

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/ Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…na Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521, Honourable Supreme Court has said (page 530): ……………… Evonik Degussa India P Ltd [ITA no. 7653/Mum./2011] ………….. Honourable Supreme Court ruling in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co P Ltd vs CIT [1953] 56 ITR 52 (SC) …………. Nimbus Communications Ltd vs ACIT [2011] 43 SOT 695 (Mum) ………………. Patni Computer System vs DCIT [ITA No 426 & 1131/PN/06 (Assessment Year 2002-03 & 2003-04)] ………… The assessee also wishes to draw your attention towards OECD Guidelines. which states the following: "1.64 A tax administration's examination of a controlled transaction ordina…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…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…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of It (OSD)10(2)(2)Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-9(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5764/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…e company has cited before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1 1. Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) . & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 2 2. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) . 3 3. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) . 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for t…

Concentrix Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Minacs Private Limited, Minacs Limited & Adity Birla Minacs Worldwide Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5260/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B

…e company has cited before us the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest expenditure should not be disallowed in relation to loan given to subsidiaries based on commercial expediency: 1 1. Bombay steam Navigation Co (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) . & ITA No. 5823/Mum/2019 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 2 2. India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) . 3 3. S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1/158 Taxman 74 (SC) . 31. Further the Ld. AR for the assessee company has also relied on the following judgments wherein it has been held that interest paid on borrowed funds for t…

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

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

ITA 304/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2023

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)

…and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test……………….." (p. 290) [5.3.2] The Supreme Court, in the case, Bombay Steam Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC), has laid down the test for determining the question whether a particular expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of the business and, therefore, a revenue expenditure in the following words: " Whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the fac…

ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad vs. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad

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

ITA 303/RAN/2017[13=14]Status: PendingITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2023

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)

…and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test……………….." (p. 290) [5.3.2] The Supreme Court, in the case, Bombay Steam Navigation Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC), has laid down the test for determining the question whether a particular expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of the business and, therefore, a revenue expenditure in the following words: " Whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose of business must be determined on a consideration of all the fac…

DCIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Arts Initiative Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7554/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(2)(b)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2013-14 DCIT, Circle 21(1) Vs. Religare Arts Initiative Ltd. Room No. 202B, 2nd Floor, 2nd Floor, Rajlok Building, 24, C.R. Building, Nehru Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 019 New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AADCR7075A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Ms. Somya Jain, CA Department by: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT- DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of 09.08.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the Reven…

The ACIT, Circle Morbi, Morbi vs. M/S. Vita Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/RJT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Acit, Morbi Circle Vs. M/S.Vita Granito P.Ltd. Morbi. B/H. Dariyalal Resort Village-Jambudiya Morbi. Pan : Aaccv 4765 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 14.3.2019 Pertaining To The Asst.Year 2008-09. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Appeal Of The Revenue Was Earlier Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect. However, Subsequently, The Department Filed An Ma Pleading That The Appeal Of The Revenue Could Not Be Dismissed On Account Of Low Tax Effect, Because, It Fell Within The Exceptions Provided In Para-8(C) Of The Board’S Instruction Directing Withdrawal Of Appeals On Account Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, ld.Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

…al gas connection charges, we would like to submit that these are expenditures incurred by Gas Company to make available us the required industrial gas connection. . The Supreme Court in case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Private Limited v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 has given following definition of revenue expenditure. "In considering whether particular expenditure is revenue expenditure or not, one has to consider the nature and the ordinary course of business and the objects for which the expenditure is incurred. The question whether a particular expenditure is revenue expenditure incurred for the purpose…

Eci Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 968/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…dated 28.10.2015(ITAT,Mumbai) iii.CIT vs. E-Funds International India(2007) 162 Taxman 01(del.) iv. CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt.Ltd. (301 ITR 368) (Del.HC) v. CITvs. Aspentech India(P.) [2010] 187 taxman 25(Delhi) vi. Bombay Steam Navigaiton co.Pvt Ltd. (56 ITR 52) (SC) vii. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (124 ITR 1) (SC) 17. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment is concerned, he submitted that the AO in the original assessment order has neither discussed nor there was an opinion with respect to issue related to prior period expend…

DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Eci Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eci Engineering & Income Tax, Construction Co., Ltd., Circle 17(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita 968/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Eci Engineering & Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Construction Co., Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaace74411G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy. Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2023 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dated 30.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Abridged Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita No.968/Hyd/2016 Read As Under : “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) - 5 Is Erroneous In Law In Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of The Ld.Ao In Treating Sale Of Partly Paid Up Shares As Fully Paid & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50,14,625/- As Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.27,69,422/- Towards Difference In Interest. 4. Further, The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Observe That The Notes To Financial Statements Clearly Mentioned The Interest Income Which Pertained To The Previous Year & Accordingly Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Assessing The Difference In Interest Of Rs.27,69,422/-. 5. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Difference Of Prior Period Income Of Rs.1,26,71,371/-.”

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…dated 28.10.2015(ITAT,Mumbai) iii.CIT vs. E-Funds International India(2007) 162 Taxman 01(del.) iv. CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt.Ltd. (301 ITR 368) (Del.HC) v. CITvs. Aspentech India(P.) [2010] 187 taxman 25(Delhi) vi. Bombay Steam Navigaiton co.Pvt Ltd. (56 ITR 52) (SC) vii. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (124 ITR 1) (SC) 17. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment is concerned, he submitted that the AO in the original assessment order has neither discussed nor there was an opinion with respect to issue related to prior period expend…

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR
Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

…s that element of interest comes in only with respect to an indebtedness created out of a loan transaction. 60. In this regard, the Appellant would like to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co (1953) P. Ltd v CIT 56 ITR 52 (SC) has appreciated that every indebtedness cannot be construed to have arisen out of a loan transaction and interest is involved only in relation to a debt created out of a loan transaction. Therefore, there is no justification for making the impugned adjustment. Interest is not required to be computed once the primary international transaction h…

DCIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S 3I Infitech Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 350/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs 3I Infotech Consultancy Services Limited, Tower No.5, 3Rd To 6Th Floors, Tax, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aayakar International Infortech Park Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 020 Pan : Aaacz3181E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250Section 40

…tion 40(a(ia) and also made other additions. Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT, who deleted the said addition by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Com. Pvt Ltd vs CIT (1963) 56 ITR 52 (SC) wherein it was held that interest on unpaid purchase price was not to be treated as interest on loan and also on the ground that the discounting charge of bills of exchange or factoring charges of sale cannot be termed as interest. The Revenue is in appeal before us as against the deletion of the said addition by the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The Ld.DR co…

Gmr Air Cargo & Aerospace Engineering Ltd(Successor to Gmr Hyderabad Air Cargo & Logistics Pvt Ltd), Shamshabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 183/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Gmr Air Cargo & Vs. Ito,Ward-2(3) Aerospace Engineering Signature Towers Ltd.(Successor To Gmr Kondapur, Kothaguda Hyderabad Air Cargo & Opp. Botanical Gardens Logistics Pvt Ltd.) R.R.District Rajiv Gandhi International Hyderabad-500 084 Airport, Samshabad Hyderabad-500 409

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

…dated 28.10.2015(ITAT,Mumbai) iii.CIT vs. E-Funds International India(2007) 162 Taxman 01(del.) iv. CIT vs. ESPN Software India Pvt.Ltd. (301 ITR 368) (Del.HC) v. CITvs. Aspentech India(P.) [2010] 187 taxman 25(Delhi) vi. Bombay Steam Navigaiton co.Pvt Ltd. (56 ITR 52) (SC) vii. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs. CIT (124 ITR 1) (SC) 17. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A). So far as the validity of reassessment is concerned, he submitted that the AO in the original assessment order has neither discussed nor there was an opinion with respect to issue related to prior period expen…

Ske & C- Kct Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4204/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e-pass roads constructed for the said transportation were of temporary nature and were to be demolished after the necessary use. The CIT(A) considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for…

Ske & C- Kct Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4203/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e-pass roads constructed for the said transportation were of temporary nature and were to be demolished after the necessary use. The CIT(A) considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for…

Ske & C- Kct Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 4202/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e-pass roads constructed for the said transportation were of temporary nature and were to be demolished after the necessary use. The CIT(A) considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for…

Ske & C- Kct Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 24(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 5451/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5451/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit 85A, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle 24(2) Rishyamook Building, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadas9266L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4202 To 4204/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 बनाम M/S Ske & C-Kct Joint Venture, Dcit Thapar House, Central Wing, Vs. Circle 23(2) 3Rd Floor, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e-pass roads constructed for the said transportation were of temporary nature and were to be demolished after the necessary use. The CIT(A) considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ld. vs. CIT 91965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) : judgment in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) and judgment in the case of Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 89 CTR (SC) 176 : (1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC). He further observed that the assessee had to incur expenditure on the construction of bye-pass road and temporary bridge on river Yamuna for…

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

….183/Bang/2022 Page 9 of 19 ix. That reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents: a. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Limited 27 ITR 34 (SC); b. Empire Jute Co Ltd vs CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC); c. Bombay Steam Navigation Co [1953] (P) Limited v CIT [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) 9. The learned D.R. supported the orders of the DRP and submitted that the assessee had claimed the telephone and internet charges separately. The learned D.R. also submitted that the DRP after perusal of the invoices has held that the expenditure to be capital in nature and therefore prayed that the same needs to be upheld. 10. We have perus…

Bigfoot Retail Solution Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3161/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajinder Jha, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…nging into existence an asset or advantage of enduring nature, it cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Following decisions were cited:- (1) Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 27 ITR 34 (SC) (2) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) (3) Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi) (4) CIT vs. J K Synthetics Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 371 (Delhi) (5) ACIT vs. M/s. GE Capital Business Process Management Services 64 taxmann.com 156 (Delhi ITAT) 6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance observing that since the software was an integral and essential part of com…