PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd.

102 Taxmann.com 437High Court2019#4437 most cited

What is PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for repairs and renovation of hotel premises, which improves existing business without creating a new asset or advantage of an enduring nature, is treated as revenue expenditure.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

PCIT v Goa Tourism Development Ltd. · repairs and renovation expenditure · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring advantage · improvement of existing business

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd.

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2617/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner of No.36A, 2nd Phase, Income-tax, Circle 12(5) v. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN : AAACW1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent by : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM T…

M/S. Waters (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are partly allowed

ITA 2616/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 It(Tp)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner Of No.36A, 2Nd Phase, Income-Tax, Circle 12(5) V. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aaacw1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent By : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Cit(A), Both Dated 30.10.2019. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. Common Issues Are Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Smt.G.Vaidehi, AdovcateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM and Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM IT(TP)A No.2616/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 IT(TP)A No.2617/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/s.Waters (India) Private Limited The Dy.Commissioner of No.36A, 2nd Phase, Income-tax, Circle 12(5) v. Bangalore. Peenya Industrial Area Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN : AAACW1411C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.G.Vaidehi, Adovcate Respondent by : Sri.Priyardarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021 Date of Hearing : 28.09.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM T…

M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar, Dhanbad vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, रााँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, RANCHI श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.78/RAN/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACFB 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He…

PCIT, Panaji v. Goa Tourism Development Ltd. (102 Taxmann.com 437) — Cited in 26 Judgments | BharatTax