Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. CIT

80 ITR 415High Court#16133 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. CIT

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…CIT reported in 60 ITR 52. (b) Decision of the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd reported in 221 CTR 405 (Raj) (c) Decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd vs. CIT reported in 80 ITR 415 4.4. Based on the aforesaid factual submissions and judicial precedents, the assessee concluded that the expenses of Rs.24,85,25,000/- incurred on the issue of PNCDs i.e. Hybrid Securities are Revenue in nature allowable as business expenses. The assessee also gave the details of issue expenses as under:- M/s. Tata Steel Limited 4.5. The assesse…

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Addl. CIT Range 6(3)

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2004[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegrasim Industries Limited V. Addl. Cit, Range 6(3) Corporate Finance Division 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Aditya Birla Centre “A” Wing Aayakar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Dy. Cit, Range 6(3), V. Grasim Industries Limited, 5Th Floor, Room No. 505, Corporate Finance Division, Aayakar Bhavan, Aditya Birla Centre, “A” Wing, Mumbai-20. 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg Worli, Mumbai-400025 Pan: Aaacg4464B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj & Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistryFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj &

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

…e Charges 26,707/- Total 9,15,068/- 72. Debenture issue expenses were capitalised in the books of account. However, in the return of income, the same were claimed as business expenditure relying on the decisions in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd v. CIT (80 ITR 415) (Bom) and India Cement Limited Vs CIT (60 ITR 52) (SC). During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer rejected claim of the Assessee following its own order for AY 98-99. Detailed discussion in this regard is in para 14 on page 9 and 10 of the assessment. on appeal the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of the Assessee following his own order…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Citi Financial Cosumer Finance India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3118/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…d by the CBDT, it was contended that expenditure is revenue in nature. Inter alia, the assessee relied upon decisions in CIT Vs. East India Hotels, 252 ITR 860 (Cal); CIT Vs. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd., 250 ITR 84 (Bom),Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. CIT 80 ITR 415 (Bom); CIT Vs. OL: 218 CTR 165 (Guj); CIT Vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd., 290 ITR 217 (Mad) and CIT Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd., 304 ITR 67 (Mad).It was further pointed out that deferment of issue expenses in the books would not lead to the conclusion that the expenditure is not revenue in nature. In support, the assessee relied up…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jubilant Energy Kharsang Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR

Section 2

…oan in question as Revenue expenditure then how the “upfront fee” which also form the part of the interest can be disallowed. The ld. CIT (A) by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. CIT 80 ITR 415 and Hon’ble Rajasthan 7 ITA No.1118/Del./2015 High Court in case of CIT vs. Secure Meters Ltd. 321 ITR 611 has rightly held that upfront charges paid by the assessee is allowable deduction being part of the “interest” already allowed by the AO as revenue expenditure. Finding no illegality or perversity in the deletion of addition of Rs.1,67,22,…

M/S. National Textile Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2416/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. National Textile Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), New Delhi Corporation Ltd., Core-4, Scope Complex-7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaacn2847I (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manoj Anand, Ca Respondent By Ms. Deepika Mittal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 02/01/2014 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Cit (A) Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…structuring & revival was business of the assessee. Further, we find that before the lower authorities, the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 80 ITR 415 and decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income 10 AY: 2003-04 Tax reported in 60 ITR 52. Both these decisions are with reference to the Income Tax Act, 1922. In both the decision the expenditure in the nature of stamp duty, registration fee, lawyers fee etc. incurred in respect of issue of debe…