(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

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…n receiving consideration does not fall within the ambit of lending or borrowing of money as provided under section 92B(1) of the Act. To support this contention reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 52 (SC). 11.2 The ld. Counsel further argued that even if the alleged delay in payments by AE is accepted and the said transaction is held to be an international transaction, no adjustment is required as the transaction is already at Arm’s length. The ld. Counsel submitted that the average margins of the comparables is 1.89% as against the operating…

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…n receiving consideration does not fall within the ambit of lending or borrowing of money as provided under section 92B(1) of the Act. To support this contention reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 52 (SC). 11.2 The ld. Counsel further argued that even if the alleged delay in payments by AE is accepted and the said transaction is held to be an international transaction, no adjustment is required as the transaction is already at Arm’s length. The ld. Counsel submitted that the average margins of the comparables is 1.89% as against the operating…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…n receiving consideration does not fall within the ambit of lending or borrowing of money as provided under section 92B(1) of the Act. To support this contention reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 52 (SC). 11.2 The ld. Counsel further argued that even if the alleged delay in payments by AE is accepted and the said transaction is held to be an international transaction, no adjustment is required as the transaction is already at Arm’s length. The ld. Counsel submitted that the average margins of the comparables is 1.89% as against the operating…

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd ( Formerly Knon As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7721/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

…n receiving consideration does not fall within the ambit of lending or borrowing of money as provided under section 92B(1) of the Act. To support this contention reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 56 ITR 52 (SC). 11.2 The ld. Counsel further argued that even if the alleged delay in payments by AE is accepted and the said transaction is held to be an international transaction, no adjustment is required as the transaction is already at Arm’s length. The ld. Counsel submitted that the average margins of the comparables is 1.89% as against the operating…

Lt Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6221/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT- DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

…he TPO, in our respectful submission, therefore, clearly erred in treating the transaction of payment by way of share application money as loan and imputing notional interest thereon.” 39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. 56 ITR 52 has held that every indebtness cannot be construed to have arisen out of loan transaction and interest is involved only in relation to a debt created out of loan transaction. 40. There is no dispute that the routine expenses incurred by the assessee in regular course of if its business are considered as loan and in light of ratio of laid down by t…

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

…ns in support of its contention that the aforementioned annual payment made to DOT in connection with the licence is revenue in nature - • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27ITR 34 (SC) • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52 (SC) • KS Radhakrishan Kapoor vs. CIT 47 ITR 938 (All) • CIT vs. Menora Hosiery Works P. Ltd. (1977) 109 ITR 714 (Bom) • Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd vs. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 13 (Bom) • CIT vs. Assam Oil Co. Ltd. 107 ITR 261 (Cal) • Mahan agar Telephone Ni…

Hitachi Metglas (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…57 (SC) · • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) · • Arvind Mills Ltd v. CIT: 97 ITR 422 (SC) 51 • ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 · • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) · • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) · DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) · • Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) · • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) · • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) · • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) · Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) · • M.K. Bros. (P.)…

Shri.Suresh Nagaraja Rao Kestur, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Likith R Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…icultural land was converted into non agricultural (industrial) purpose. Part of the land was sold to three different persons as industrial land. Even as per the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay steam Navigation co.(p).Ltd. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52(SC) CIT v. BANGLAORE TRANSPORT Co.Ltd. (1967) (66 ITR 373 (SC) and also CIT v. Kalikutty (K.B.)(1969)(731TR 533(SC), the assessee's activity clearly fall under the business activity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases has held that the business or profession must have been carried on any time during the previous year. Therefore, it is not…

The DCIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. The Gujarat Co. Op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., Anand

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 521/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R
Section 37(1)

…and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting the addition on addition of Rs. 12,83,66,000/- on account of Co-operative and Breed Development expenses, ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 56 ITR 52 (SC) relied upon by the A.O. in the assessment order. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order of the CIT(A) on the issues raised in the aforesaid Grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Brief facts of the case are that t…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Telco Construction

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…(2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CIT, (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC), TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. VS. JCIT, 372 ITR 605, STEAM NAVIGATION CO, (1953) (P) LTD. VS. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 52 and EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). 11 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’ (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC) has held that even though principles of res judicata do not apply to incom…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Livewire Programme Trdg. Co P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3264/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (103 ITR 66), Bombay Samachar Ltd. (74 ITR 723), CIT v/s Sales Magnesite (Pvt) Ltd (1995) (214 ITR 1) (Born), CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) (38 ITR 601), Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (1965) (56 ITR 52), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (1967) (65 ITR 1) Cal), JK Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v/s CIT (1969) (72 ITR 296) (All), CIT vis Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd (2002) (254 ITR 377) (Del.), DCIT v/s M/s Parry And Company Ltd. (2008- TIOL-555- ITAT-MAD), Hatiwala Silk Mills v/s Assessing Officer (2002) (19 TT] 284) (Ahm.), CIT vis Walchand and Co.…

Exotica Housing & Infrstructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 8(4), New Delhi

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…rily the duty of the debtor to seek out the creditor and to repay the money according to the agreement, whereas, in the case of depositor to go to the depositee and make a demand for it. 14.3.7. In the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in 56 ITR 52, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a loan of money undoubtedly results in a debt, but every debt does not involve a loan. Liability to pay a debt may arise from diverse sources, and a loan is only one of such sources. 23 ITA.No.5188/Del./2019 M/s. Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Every creditor who is entitled to receiv…

M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. - 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3927/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

Section 143(3)

…prematurely. The case of the revenue is that this would tantamount to capital expenditure. In this regard, we find that the reliance placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 52 (SC) is very well founded. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- “The question then is whether the expenditure is of a capital nature. It is not easy ordinarily to evolve a test for ascertaining whether in a given case expenditure is capital or revenue, for the determination of the question must depend upon…

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…ted. As there is no sale which is discounted, the money paid by whatever name called cannot be termed as discounting charges as there was no purchase or delivery of goods. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of Bombay Steam Navigation P Ltd. Vo. C!T ( 1963) 56 ITR 52 has held not interest on unpaid purchase price can t be treated as interest on loan and it is, therefore, clear that before any amount paid is construed as interest, it has to be established that the sum is payable in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In the case of he appellant, as there was no purchase/bill/delivery of goods/agreeme…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…ted. As there is no sale which is discounted, the money paid by whatever name called cannot be termed as discounting charges as there was no purchase or delivery of goods. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of Bombay Steam Navigation P Ltd. Vo. C!T ( 1963) 56 ITR 52 has held not interest on unpaid purchase price can t be treated as interest on loan and it is, therefore, clear that before any amount paid is construed as interest, it has to be established that the sum is payable in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In the case of he appellant, as there was no purchase/bill/delivery of goods/agreeme…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…ted. As there is no sale which is discounted, the money paid by whatever name called cannot be termed as discounting charges as there was no purchase or delivery of goods. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of Bombay Steam Navigation P Ltd. Vo. C!T ( 1963) 56 ITR 52 has held not interest on unpaid purchase price can t be treated as interest on loan and it is, therefore, clear that before any amount paid is construed as interest, it has to be established that the sum is payable in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In the case of he appellant, as there was no purchase/bill/delivery of goods/agreeme…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…ted. As there is no sale which is discounted, the money paid by whatever name called cannot be termed as discounting charges as there was no purchase or delivery of goods. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the case of Bombay Steam Navigation P Ltd. Vo. C!T ( 1963) 56 ITR 52 has held not interest on unpaid purchase price can t be treated as interest on loan and it is, therefore, clear that before any amount paid is construed as interest, it has to be established that the sum is payable in respect of any money borrowed or debt incurred. In the case of he appellant, as there was no purchase/bill/delivery of goods/agreeme…

DCIT - 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6387/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dcit- 2(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Financial Room No.552, Solutions Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers M.K.Road, Mumbai Iii Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.216/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.6387/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Tata Motors Vs. Dcit- 2(3)(1) Financial Solutions Ltd., Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers Iii M.K.Road, Mumbai Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaar7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM DCIT- 2(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Tata Motors Financial Room No.552, Solutions Ltd., 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers M.K.Road, Mumbai III Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAAR7043R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & CO No.216/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.6387/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. Tata Motors Vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1) Financial Solutions Ltd., Room No.552, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 106, A/B, Makers Chambers III M.K.Road, Mumbai Jamanalal Bajaj Road Nariman…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2963/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…iness to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future." 15. Referring to the decision reported in [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) (Bombay Steam Navigation Co. [1953] P. Ltd. v. CIT) as well as [1924] 8 TC 671 at 676, (Robert Addie and Sons' Collieries Ltd. v. IRC), the Apex Court referred to the words of Lord Sumner, which may usefully be extracted herein too: " If the outgoing expenditure is so related to the carrying on or the conduct of the business that it may be reg…

ACIT Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2962/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2807, 2808, 2809 & 2810/Chny/2017 धनिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Chennai – 600 086. Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit, [Pan: Aaacc 3000F] 1775, 21 Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, JCIT

…iness to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future." 15. Referring to the decision reported in [1965] 56 ITR 52 (SC) (Bombay Steam Navigation Co. [1953] P. Ltd. v. CIT) as well as [1924] 8 TC 671 at 676, (Robert Addie and Sons' Collieries Ltd. v. IRC), the Apex Court referred to the words of Lord Sumner, which may usefully be extracted herein too: " If the outgoing expenditure is so related to the carrying on or the conduct of the business that it may be reg…