Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 35D, Section 10B, Section 43(5).

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT?

158 judgments on BharatTax cite Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 792), spanning 2006 to 2026.

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 14A Section 35D Section 10B Section 43(5)Section 37 Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 35d enduring benefit section 35 revenue expenditure disallowance under section 14a capital expenditure put to use section 45 fair market value mercantile system of accounting section 37(1)section 37

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

Viki Industries Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 852/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.852/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Viki Industries Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Krishna Street, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacv2003P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2018 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) 13, Chennai Dated 20.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, Is Wrong, Illegal & Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40A(3)

…OC fee and has claimed the same as expenditure. Since the ROC fee is directly related to the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee company and relying on the apex court decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 225 ITR 792, the Assessing Officer disallowed the ROC fee paid and claimed as expenditure by the assessee and added back to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 5.1 We have heard rival contentions and perused the orders of authorities 15 I.T.A. No.852/Chny/17 below. By filing copy of the computation of in…

Gala Precision Technology Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT Range - 6(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes"

ITA 6115/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आिकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6115/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Gala Precision Technology Private Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 102-A, Orion Business Park Range 6(3) बिाम/ Near Cine Wonder Mumbai Vs. Ghodbunder Road Majiwada, Thane (W) 400 610 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1777-F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Anuj Kisnadwala, Ld. Ar Revenue By : V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 15/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : /03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Anuj Kisnadwala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 35D

…sessee on 31/10/2007. 3. The first issue is related with addition u/s 35D on account of Share issue expenses for Rs.1,19,315/- which has been disallowed, inter-alia, by following rulings of Apex Court rendered in M/s Broke Bond (I) Ltd. [225 ITR 798] & PSIDC [225 ITR 792]. The Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee [AR] fairly conceded that issue stood covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 vide ITA No.5512/Mum/2011 dated 25/07/2014, a copy of which has been placed on record. In view of admitted position, this ground of appeal stands dismissed. 4. The secon…

A.C.I.T. Central Circle-20, Mumbai vs. Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 7529/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 7529/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…by the learned CIT DR by submitting that claim of expenses towards ROC fee for increase in authorised capital was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Limited v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798(SC) and also in PSIIDC v. CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 792(SC) to be capital expenditure while the same was claimed by the taxpayer in this case to be revenue expenditure based on CA opinion and it was submitted that this was a claim which was ex-facie wrong in view of aforesaid Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of PSIIDC(supra) and Brooke Bond India Limited|(supra) and in those circumstances,…

Lakshmi Builder & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 31(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…me reason. 12. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation v/s CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd v/s CIT, 225 ITR 798, the expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as capital in nature. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of the first appellate authority on this issue. Ground no.2 is dismissed. 6 M/s. Tata Morots Ltd. 13. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of pri…

ACIT (OSD) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2997/MUM/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy, CIT

…me reason. 12. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. Learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation v/s CIT, 225 ITR 792 and Brooke Bond India Ltd v/s CIT, 225 ITR 798, the expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as capital in nature. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of the first appellate authority on this issue. Ground no.2 is dismissed. 13. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of prior period expenses amoun…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Auto Ignition Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6646/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13

Section 143Section 80

…words manufactures or produces. [170 CTR 307, 253 ITR 53,119 TAXMAN 39. (iii) Meaning of Thing Thing 1997 Raj-High CIT Vs. Trinity Hospital Court The dictionary meaning of the word thing is a product of work or activity; useful or appropriate. [131 CTR 328, 225 ITR 178, 87 TAXMAN 127] (iv) Meaning of Articles Articles 1974 Bom-HC CIT Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. The word articles used in the expression has begun or begins to manufacture or produce articles in section 15C(2)(ii) must be interpreted regard being had to the object for which the section was enacted. The provision was enacted with the a view to…

Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1051/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iii)

…tal expenditure and to hold them capital expenditure it is not necessary that non-compete fee is paid to create monopoly rights. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 140 CTR (SC) 594 : (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) has held that the fee paid to the…

Arkema Peroxides India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 1050/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Asish Tripathi, JCIT

Section 32(1)(iii)

Kuloday Technopack P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3300/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3300/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2423/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Kuloday Technopack Private ITO-8(2)(2), Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 25, Sona Industrial Estate, v. Parsi Panchayat Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400020 400069. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACK3957H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee b…

Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Delhi vs. Indian Renewable Energy

ITA/294/2016HC Delhi22 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…the Revenue was that even though the amount in question may have been claimed as ‘Administrative Expenses’ it was in fact a capital expenditure as held by the Supreme Court in its decision in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 792 (SC). 5. The ITAT has, in the impugned order, referred to the decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) in coming to the conclusion that this was not a case of concealment of material particulars which would warrant a levy of penalty. 6. Mr. Ashok Manchanda, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, urged…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Auto Ignition Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4488/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuin Ita No. 4488/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Auto Ignition Ltd. Circle-2(1), New Delhi The Bahar, 37, Dera Mandi Road, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaaca5390E)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Melhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80I

…words manufactures or produces. [170 CTR 307, 253 ITR 53,119 TAXMAN 39. (iii) Meaning of Thing Thing 1997 Raj-High CIT Vs. Trinity Hospital Court The dictionary meaning of the word thing is a product of work or activity; useful or appropriate. [131 CTR 328, 225 ITR 178, 87 TAXMAN 127] (iv) Meaning of Articles Page 9 of 15 Articles 1974 Bom-HC CIT Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. The word articles used in t re expression has begun or begins to manufacture or produce articles in section 15C(2)(ii) must be interpreted regard being had to the object for which the section was enacted. The provision was enacted with…

M/S. N.R. Sponge Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with about direction

ITA 4711/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishinr Sponge Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. Village Bahesar Sitara Indl., Central Circle-16, Growth Centre, Ph.Ii, Sitara Raipur, New Delhi Pan:Aabcn7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NK Choudhury, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 35DSection 37Section 40Section 43B

…owability of Rs. 65,000 paid as a fees for increasing authorized capital of the company, the above issue is squarely concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab industrial development Corporation versus CIT in 225 ITR 792 (SC). Therefore, this ground of Page 3 of 5 appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 2nd ground of appeal of the assessee is regarding confirmation of disallowance of 7. Rs. 1 827973/– regarding payments made to Hind Energy & Coal Beneficiation (I) private limited as washing charg…

M/S. Agarwal'S Eye Hospital Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2279/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

Section 32

…ay of the business. In coming to such a conclusion, ratios of several case laws including M/s. Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd vs. CIT (27 ITR 34) (SC), CIT vs. M/s.Coal Shipments Ltd (82 ITR 902) (SC), Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 792 (SC), CIT vs. JK Synthetics Ltd (309 ITR 371 ) and ITAT, Delhi, Special Bench in the case of Tecumseh India (P) Ltd vs Addl. CIT (2010) 127 ITD 1/5 ITR (Trib) (150) (Delhi)(SB). The ITAT while holding the expenditure being capital in nature, rejected the plea that it was eligible for depreciation as an “intangible asset” u/s.32(1)(ii). Amongst ot…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Modine Thernal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram

ITA 3310/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 35DSection 37

…red in deleting the disallowance of fees paid for increase in authorized share capital of Rs.8,80,162/-. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in not following the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC), wherein it is held that that expenses as have been claimed for increasing the authorized share capital of the assessee company are capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue expenditure. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the fees paid for increase in Authorized Share Capital is eligible for deduction u/s.35D whereas section 35D ha…