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

Empower India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5207/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 3205/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 5584/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……………. Appellant Central Circle 2(2), Room No. 806, 8Th Floor, / अपीलाथी Old Cgo Annex Bldg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 V/S M/S Empower India Ltd. 25/25A, 327, Nawab Building, 2Nd Floor, …………….Respondent Mumbai-400 001 / प्रत्यथााी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaach3967N आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 5207/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Empower India Ltd. 25/25A, 327, Nawab Building, 2Nd Floor, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400 001 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaach3967N V/S The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Room No. 806, 8Th Floor, …………….Respondent Old Cgo Annex Bldg, M.K. Road, / प्रत्यथााी Mumbai-400 020 5584 & 5207/Mum/2017 2 | P A G E

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 153C

…the expansion of the capital base of the company and is capital in nature which cannot be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd vs. CIT (1997) 93 Taxmann 5 (SC) dated 4.12.1996 and Brooke Bond India Ltd vs. CIT 91 Taxman 26 (SC) dated 27.02.1997. In case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd Vs. CIT, the Hon’ble Apex court has held as under: We do not consider it necessary to examine all the decisions in extenso because we are of the opinion that the fee paid to the…

Assistant Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 714/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.509/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.714/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Revenue by Mrs. Nandita Kanchan…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 509/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.509/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.714/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Revenue by Mrs. Nandita Kanchan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…und that (i) ESOP discounts are incurred in relation to issue of shares to employees; they are not relatable to profits and gains arising or accruing from a business / trade; the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn 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) ESOP discount does not diminish trading / business receipts of the issuing company. The company does not suffer any pecuniar…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Atco Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), M/S Atco Ltd., R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 218/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 49/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Atco Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400031 Vs. Mumbai - 20 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma (CIT DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 56Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), M/s Atco Ltd., R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Mumbai - 400031 PAN: AADCG7438C (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 218/MUM/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 49/MUM/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s Atco Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, M.K. Ro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…icate that each and every tower constructed during the year was up to use. It shows non-application of mind on the part of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC). 12. The Ld. AR submitted that construction of towers began in April 2008 whereas IRU agreement was entered into 1st January, 2009. The Assessing Officer was incorrect in stating that assessee commenced business through lease of towers under IRU agreement. Receipt of equipment and services is accounted for as CWIP while the telecom site is…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…icate that each and every tower constructed during the year was up to use. It shows non-application of mind on the part of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 792 (SC). 12. The Ld. AR submitted that construction of towers began in April 2008 whereas IRU agreement was entered into 1st January, 2009. The Assessing Officer was incorrect in stating that assessee commenced business through lease of towers under IRU agreement. Receipt of equipment and services is accounted for as CWIP while the telecom site is…

DCIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Edesk Services Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7113/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate that the share premium received by the taxpayer is in the nature of capital receipt as established by various Supreme Court ruling such as CIT Vs. Allahabad Bank (1969) 73 ITR 645 and PSIDC Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792(SC) and hence not liable to tax under the Act and cannot be considered a sham transaction. The respondent craves that this matter be disposed off in the interest of saving valuable time of the Hon’ble court.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings conducted by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2) of the 1…

ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Topaz Enclave Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2271/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-10(4), Kolkata.................................………....………………...…………………….….Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…aram Baldeo Bank (P) Ltd. reported in 144 ITR 600 also followed the same principle. The same 9 I.T.A. No. 2271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Topaz Enclave Pvt. Ltd view was affirmed in the cases of Punjab State Industrial Corporation Ltd. reported in 225 ITR 792 wherein it is held that share premium is in the nature of capital and in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. reported in 225 ITR 798. The A.O had not questioned the identity of the shareholders either. Furthermore, the entire transaction had been done through banking channels and hence section 68 of the Act was not applicable. Further, where the A…

Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 655/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 35Section 35DSection 36(1)(iv)Section 37

…ITA No. 655/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2012-2013 Eveready Industries India Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 655/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Eveready Industries India Limited,................................................Appellant 1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700 071 [PAN: AAACE 5778 N] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,...........................................Respondent Circle-11(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Appearanc…

Oracle Granito Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Addl. CIT, Range-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 745/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 80I

…ly held that fees paid for increasing authorized capital is a capital expenditure. Thus, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s 35D of the Act. Further that, the judgment passed in the matter of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.-vs-CIT 225 ITR 792(SC) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue further held that the expenses incurred on increasing the share capital and fees paid to…

Oracle Granito Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 744/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 35DSection 35D(2)Section 80I

…ly held that fees paid for increasing authorized capital is a capital expenditure. Thus, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s 35D of the Act. Further that, the judgment passed in the matter of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.-vs-CIT 225 ITR 792(SC) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue further held that the expenses incurred on increasing the share capital and fees paid to…

M/S Tamilnadu Chemists & Allied Distributors Alliance Ltd (in Liquidation), Chennai vs. ITO Corp Ward 3 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.406/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Tamilnadu Chemists & Allied The Income Tax Officer, Distributors Alliance Ltd. [In Vs. Corporate Ward 3(1), Liquidation], D-36, 8Th Floor, Halls Nungambakkam, Tower, No. 33, Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai. Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aacct7540H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 14.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenditure Of ₹.2,34,411/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Commenced Its Business Operation.

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT

…has observed that the ROC fees paid for increase in authorized share capital of a company is a capital expenditure in nature and hence cannot be allowed as an allowable deduction. 6.1 In the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 792 as well as in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 798, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the expenditure incurred by a company in connection with issue of shares with a view to increase its share capital, is directly related to the expansion of the capital base of the company, and is capital expenditure, even tho…

M/S. Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 133(6)Section 234ASection 24

…settled proposition of law that any expenditure 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 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…

Arkema Peroxides India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1318 & 1319/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ सी ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन. आर. एस .गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1318 & 1319/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2013-14 M/s. Arkema Peroxides India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1st Floor, Balmer Lawrie House, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 628, Anna Salai, Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [PAN: AAACE 1713F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri.…

Arkema Peroxides India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1318/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1318 & 1319/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ सी ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन. आर. एस .गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"यके सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1318 & 1319/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2013-14 M/s. Arkema Peroxides India Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1st Floor, Balmer Lawrie House, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 628, Anna Salai, Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [PAN: AAACE 1713F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri.…

Financial Institutional Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6891/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6479/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Jm Financial Institutional Securities Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Jm Financial Limited) Tax- 4(3)(1) बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Cnergy Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabca-2496-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: K. Shivram & Aditya Ajgaonkar, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…sons:- a) ESOP discounts are incurred in relation to issue of shares to employees. They are not relatable to profits and gains arising or accruing from a business / trade. The Apex Court decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Devl. 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 an allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally held in business of the company. b) ESOP discount does not diminish trading/ business receipts of the issuing company. The company does not suffer any pecun…

ACIT - 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. J. M. Financial Institutional Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6479/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6479/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Jm Financial Institutional Securities Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income (Now Merged With Jm Financial Limited) Tax- 4(3)(1) बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Cnergy Room No.649, 6Th Floor, Vs. Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabca-2496-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: K. Shivram & Aditya Ajgaonkar, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…sons:- a) ESOP discounts are incurred in relation to issue of shares to employees. They are not relatable to profits and gains arising or accruing from a business / trade. The Apex Court decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Devl. 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 an allowable deduction even if such expenditure may incidentally held in business of the company. b) ESOP discount does not diminish trading/ business receipts of the issuing company. The company does not suffer any pecun…

I.T.O., Ward-8(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Hoogly Met Coke and Power Co. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2259/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 56

…incorrect as the expenditure paid to ROC as fee for increasing the authorized share capital is a capital expenditure and hence, by relying on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) the AO disallowed a sum of Rs.4,78,000/- being one-fifth of Rs.23,94,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.35,22,000/- claimed by the assessee for deduction u/s. 35D of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition by observing as under: “Ground no. 6 deals with disallowance of preliminary ex…

DCIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mercury Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 450/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandy. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Mercury Projects Income Tax, Circle 16(2) Private Limited, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadcm9019R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35D

…learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd vs. CIT reported in (1997) 91 Taxman 26 (S.C) and also the decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation vs. CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 792 (S.C) in support of the disallowance made by the AO. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned DR are distinguishable in facts from the case of the assessee. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd (Supra) was considering the issue…