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. Brigade Enterprises Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…f the act. The Ld.AO called upon assessee to explain why the same should be allowed as an admissible expenditure. He placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 792 and Broke Bond India Ltd. vs CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 178. 2.4 The assessee submitted that these expenses were incurred for raising the public issue 1st time which was raised in financial year 2007-8 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 and the same is rightly claimed by assessee company. Assessee relied on Page 5 of 25 the decision of CIT…

Metropolis Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 1547/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…r relied upon the decision of the CIT Vs. VTM Ltd 319 ITR 336, decision of ITAT Bangalore in Texas Instrument Pvt. Ltd Vs. Additional CIT, ITA Nos. 144 and 169/Bang/2014, DCIT Vs. Bengal Beverages ITA No. 1218/Kol/2015 dated 06.10.2017, CIT Vs. Trinity Hotels 225 ITR 178 of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court and decision of the coordinate bench in Bikanerwala Foods Vs. DCIT 6357/Del/2015. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has held that machinery installed at the collection center depreciation is not to be allowed however, he allowed additional depreciation with respect to the machinery installed in pathological laborator…

Metropolis Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the claim of the deduction of dividend distribution tax made by the assessee in this additional ground is rejected

ITA 1546/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…r relied upon the decision of the CIT Vs. VTM Ltd 319 ITR 336, decision of ITAT Bangalore in Texas Instrument Pvt. Ltd Vs. Additional CIT, ITA Nos. 144 and 169/Bang/2014, DCIT Vs. Bengal Beverages ITA No. 1218/Kol/2015 dated 06.10.2017, CIT Vs. Trinity Hotels 225 ITR 178 of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court and decision of the coordinate bench in Bikanerwala Foods Vs. DCIT 6357/Del/2015. He submitted that the ld CIT(A) has held that machinery installed at the collection center depreciation is not to be allowed however, he allowed additional depreciation with respect to the machinery installed in pathological laborator…

Ocimum Bio Solutions India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad

ITA 2178/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Ocimum Bio Solutions Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of India Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaco 4095L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Page 3) "4. In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the claim of the assessee toas negatived by the assessing authority relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 792/93 Taxman 5 where it was held that the payment made to the…

Asst CIT CIT 1, Thane vs. Bayer Sheets India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2170/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us At The Time Of Hearing. The Same Is Reckoned As A Statement Made From The Bar. Accordingly, The Ground No. 2 Raised By The Revenue Is Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 78

…Covestro India Private Limited (formerly known as Bayer Sheets India Private Limited) company is to be treated as a capital expenditure as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 792/93 Taxman 5 and in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 272/[1982] 10 Taxman 18 (Cal.). 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. ……………. 12. We h…

Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 907/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. PAN-AAICs2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad PAN-AAICs2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date of hearing: 22/02/…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited(Formerly Sks Microfinance Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 252/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad Pan-Aaics2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bharat Financial Inclusion Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. PAN-AAICs2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Bharat Financial Inclusion Income-tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad PAN-AAICs2940J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date of hearing: 22/02/…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2324/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2322/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2325/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2323/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2321/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Dy. CIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mahendra Cie Automotive Ltd. (Formely Known As Mahindra Forgings Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue for A

ITA 2320/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 37(1)

…l which is not an allowable deduction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) and Brooke Bond India Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex court has held that expenditure resulting in 'increase in capital" is not allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally help in business of the company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not app…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Kulkarni/Mr. Arvind V. Sonde, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…9. It would be of interest to note that in Empire Jute Co.'s case (supra), the Supreme Court considered its earlier two judgments in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT[1997] 225 ITR 798 and Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT[1997] 225 ITR 792. Distinguishing these two judgments, the Supreme Court pointed out that those cases related to the issue of fresh shares which led to an inflow of fresh funds into the company, which expands or adds to its capital employed in the company resulting in the expansion of its profit making apparatus. The expenditure incurred for the purpose of increas…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs DCIT, 6th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, CR Building, Noida. New Delhi. PAN: AAACF1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, CR Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACF1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D…

M/S. Religare Enterprise Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs Dcit, 6Th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, Cr Building, Noida. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, Cr Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.11.2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, For A.Y. 2011-12. Itas No.230 & 574/Del/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Religare Securities Ltd., Vs DCIT, 6th Floor, Prius Global, Circle-21(1), A-3, 4, 5, Plot No.11, Sector-125, CR Building, Noida. New Delhi. PAN: AAACF1952D Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Vs Religare Securities Ltd., Circle-21(1), . D-3, P-3B, District Centre, CR Building, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACF1952D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Tejasvi Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. D…

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

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1448/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Mahajan -ARFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan CIT-DR
Section 40ASection 40A(9)Section 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…

M/S Tanglin Developement Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1527/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.1527(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Tanglin Developments Ltd., No.23/2, Coffee Day Square, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 Panno.Aabct0356N Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Cr Buildings, Queen’S Road, Bangalore Respondent Appellant By :Shri C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, Cit

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…said decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. Pr.CIT also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Industrial Development Corporation 225 ITR 792 and Brook Bond India Ltd., 225 ITR 798 (SC) and held that certain expenses are not allowable either as revenue expenditure nor capital expenditure. 10. The Pr.CIT also expressed the view that foreign fluctuation loss is a notional expenditure and hence it could not be ITA No.1527(Bang/2018 7 capitalized. Accordingly, he observed that when notion…

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

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

ITA 1449/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…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…

M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 37/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 56(2)

…issue against the assessee, by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Brooke rendered in the case of Bond India Limited Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 798 and also judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of PSIDC Ltd., Vs. CIT as reported in 225 ITR 792 (SC). He drew our attention to page 5 of additional evidence 1 filed before Tribunal and it was pointed out that this is an agreement dated 14.11.2014 between the assessee and M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., and in particular, our attention was drawn to the scope of work for M/s. Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd., noted in para 4 of this agreement. He pl…