Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 792Supreme Court of India1997#620 most cited

What is Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital, such as expenses related to issuing shares or an initial public offering (IPO), is capital expenditure. Such expenses are not allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37, even if they incidentally benefit the business, because they result in an increase in capital.

158

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT · 225 ITR 792 · Section 37 · Section 37(1) · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · issue of shares · IPO expenses · increase in share capital · allowability of deduction · business expenditure

Also reported as

93 Taxmann 5

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 10BSection 43(5)Section 37Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 35denduring benefitsection 35revenue expendituredisallowance under section 14acapital expenditureput to usesection 45fair market valuemercantile system of accountingsection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 398/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…has held that this expenditure is not allowable a it is capital in nature and accordingly disallowed ₹.3,30,000/- and brought to tax. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Corporation v. 9 I.T.A. Nos.397-401/Chny/23 CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the fee was paid in relation to statutory compliance for increase in authorized share capital. The assessee raised more resources by way of capital for the purpose of increasing/scaling up the operations/b…

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 397/CHNY/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

…has held that this expenditure is not allowable a it is capital in nature and accordingly disallowed ₹.3,30,000/- and brought to tax. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Corporation v. 9 I.T.A. Nos.397-401/Chny/23 CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8.1 Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the fee was paid in relation to statutory compliance for increase in authorized share capital. The assessee raised more resources by way of capital for the purpose of increasing/scaling up the operations/b…

Ssp Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT Circle-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8756/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshssp Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, Circle-2(1), South Extn. Part-I, New Faridabad Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs1415J

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…not be held as capital in nature and would be squarely allowable as revenue expenditure. We find that the ld. DR before us placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd vs CIT reported in 225 ITR 792 (SC). We find that this decision was rendered in the SSP Pvt. Ltd context of allowability of ROC fees paid for enhancement of authorized capital of a company which was held as capital in nature. This decision in our considered opinion is factually distinguishable. In any event, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of Bangalor…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1794/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Jasbir S. Chouhan (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45

…w CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP 2 M/s. Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. expenses without appreciating the fact that Apex Court in its decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) have held that expenditure resulting in increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. ii) Whether on facts and circumstance and in law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP expense…

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAHCS6896A Assessee by : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, ARs Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 16.06.2023 Date of pronouncement : 13.09.2023 R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This appeal is filed by Malc…

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd (Now Merged With Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1796/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 45Section 80G

…) Whether on facts and circumstance and in law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP expenses without appreciating the fact that Apex Court in its decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) have held that expenditure resulting in increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. ii) Whether on facts and circumstance and in law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP expense…

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd (Now Merged With Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1795/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 45Section 80G

…) Whether on facts and circumstance and in law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP expenses without appreciating the fact that Apex Court in its decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) have held that expenditure resulting in increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. ii) Whether on facts and circumstance and in law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO on ESOP expense…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…was incurred in connection with the issue of shares for increase in share capital. AO made disallowance basing on the apex court judgments in the case of M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd (225 ITR 798)(SC) and M/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (225 ITR 792)(SC). The CIT (A) confirmed the action of the AO stating that the said expenditure should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. During the proceedings before us, Ld AR for assessee relied on various judgments including the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Maharashtra Ugine and Steel Co Ltd (250 ITR 84)(Bom). After going through…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…option will give enduring benefit to the assessee company from the employees who have availed the scheme. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 798 held that the said expenditure would be capital in nature. This action was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that this issue is now settled by the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd., in favour of the assessee, wherein it has been held that the deduction is to be allo…

Shri Vardhman Ornaments Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 567/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 567/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Vardhman Ito बनाम/ Ward – 4(1)(3), Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 205 & 201 A/B 2Nd Floor, Ahmedabad Super Mall, Nr. Lal Bunglow, C. G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aancs6533N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Written Submission Filed अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/07/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 14/10/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 8, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Order Dated 14.03.2015 Passed By The Ito

For Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 567/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Vardhman ITO बनाम/ Ward – 4(1)(3), Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 205 & 201 A/B 2nd Floor, Ahmedabad Super Mall, Nr. Lal Bunglow, C. G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AANCS6533N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Written Submission Filed अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…option will give enduring benefit to the assessee company from the employees who have availed the scheme. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 798 held that the said expenditure would be capital in nature. This action was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that this issue is now settled by the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd., 17 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 in favour of the assessee, wherein it has be…

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

…option will give enduring benefit to the assessee company from the employees who have availed the scheme. The ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd., reported in 225 ITR 798 held that the said expenditure would be capital in nature. This action was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that this issue is now settled by the Special Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd., 17 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 in favour of the assessee, wherein it has be…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Green Infra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7529/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 250Section 260ASection 56(1)Section 61Section 78(2)

…penditure incurred for the expansion of the capital base of a company is to be treated as a capital expenditure as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Green Infra Ltd. ITA No.7529/Mum./2016 Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT 225 ITR 792 and in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. VS CIT. Thus the expenditure and the receipts directly relating to the share capital of a company are of capital in nature and therefore cannot be taxed u/s. 56(1) of the Act. The assessee succeeds and Revenue fails on this account. 11. The Ld. Departmental Representative has raised an altogether plea by…

DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Ventures Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 110/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…xpenses of Rs. 50,58,08,417/-. Revenue is challenging the same before us by placing reliance on the decisions reported in M/s Brooke Bond India Ltd vs. CIT Page 2 of 7 (1997) 91 taxman 26 (SC), M/s. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC) and CIT Vs. Kodak India Limited 253 ITR 447 (SC). 5. Per contra, Ld. AR submitted that in the return of income filed on 26/09/2009 for the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 10,11,61,683/- under section 35D of the Act representing 1/5th of the total issue expenses of Rs. 50,58,08,417/- and the Ld. CIT(A), after h…

The United Western Bank Ltd. (Through Successors Idbi Bank Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 289/PUN/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…ry and the context of Sec. 35D does not require manufacture of an article to quality for deduction and failed to appreciate that the claim was under Sec. 35D (2) (c)(iv) and not U/s 37 as was the case in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation V/S CIT 225 ITR 792 which he purported to follow. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.72300000/ U/s 14A without appreciating the scope and purpose of Sec. 14A. He ought to have held that it was for the A.O. to establish a direct nexus between tax-exempt income and expenditure to earn such income. He also ought to have held that unl…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1339/PUN/2007[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…ry and the context of Sec. 35D does not require manufacture of an article to quality for deduction and failed to appreciate that the claim was under Sec. 35D (2) (c)(iv) and not U/s 37 as was the case in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation V/S CIT 225 ITR 792 which he purported to follow. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.72300000/ U/s 14A without appreciating the scope and purpose of Sec. 14A. He ought to have held that it was for the A.O. to establish a direct nexus between tax-exempt income and expenditure to earn such income. He also ought to have held that unl…

The United Western Bank Ltd., Satara vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as above

ITA 1738/PUN/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C Narseh, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

…ry and the context of Sec. 35D does not require manufacture of an article to quality for deduction and failed to appreciate that the claim was under Sec. 35D (2) (c)(iv) and not U/s 37 as was the case in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation V/S CIT 225 ITR 792 which he purported to follow. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.72300000/ U/s 14A without appreciating the scope and purpose of Sec. 14A. He ought to have held that it was for the A.O. to establish a direct nexus between tax-exempt income and expenditure to earn such income. He also ought to have held that unl…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…fore the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of expenses incurred in connection with the issues of share, relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and also in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 25 ITR 798 (SC). Similarly the CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncement while confirming the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is before us for disallowance of share issue expenses and the disallowance u…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…fore the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of expenses incurred in connection with the issues of share, relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and also in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 25 ITR 798 (SC). Similarly the CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncement while confirming the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is before us for disallowance of share issue expenses and the disallowance u…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…fore the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of expenses incurred in connection with the issues of share, relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and also in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd., Vs. CIT (1997) 25 ITR 798 (SC). Similarly the CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncement while confirming the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is before us for disallowance of share issue expenses and the disallowance u…