Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Maharshtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai

In the result , the Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2004-05 is partly allowed and Cross Objections preferred by the assessee for the Asst Year 2005-06 is allowed

…awyer's fee etc, that the assessee had incurred expenses towards fee paid with regard to Dabhol Project. He referred to page No.340 of the paper book. He relied upon the case of Tapadia Tools(372ITR 605),Raychem RPG Ltd.(346 ITR138), Richardson Hindustan Ltd.(169 ITR 516)and Bombay Cycle and Motor agencies Ltd. (118 ITR 42).DR supported the order of the FAA . 7.3.We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the judgment of Tapadia Tools, delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court(supra)and relied upon by the FAA has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.In the matter of Raychem RPG Ltd.(supra),the Hon'b…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…that the stamp duty on leasehold rights was allowable as a revenue expenditure under Sec. 37 of the Act relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. Cinecita (P) Ltd.- [(1982) 137 ITR 652 (Bom)]. (ii) Richardson Hindustan ltd. Vs. CIT- [(1988) 169 ITR 516 (Bom)] (iii) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services P. Ltd.- [(1998) 233 ITR 468 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. H.M.T. LTd. – [(1993) 203 ITR 820 (Karn)] (v) DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. – [(2010) 329 ITR 479 (Guj)] (vi) ACIT Vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd.- [(2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Del)] (vii) CIT Vs. Hari Vignesh Motors P. Ltd. [(2006) 282 ITR 3…

M/S. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

…siness. 11. The lease was going to be initially for a period of ten years. There was, of course, a clause for renewal at the option of the assessee for a further period of five years. In view of this court's decision in Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 169 ITR 516, in which, following the earlier decisions in CIT v. Hanftst Pharmaceutical Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 877, CIT v. Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 42 and CIT v. Cinceita Private Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 652, this court held that the period of lease was not of much relevance and that the expenditure incurred for acquiring premises on lease w…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Wholesale Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

…ere of revenue nature which were incurred for the purpose of lease transactions and not for the purchase of capital assets . The ld. CIT(A), decided the issue in favor of the assessee by following the decision rendered in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) and rightly followed the ratio laid down in the said decisions. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the AO has not disputed the fact that the lease is Long term lease/licence and is not of recurring in nature. In view of these facts and the ratio laid down in the above said decision, we find no…

Indiabulls Wholesale Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

…ere of revenue nature which were incurred for the purpose of lease transactions and not for the purchase of capital assets . The ld. CIT(A), decided the issue in favor of the assessee by following the decision rendered in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) and rightly followed the ratio laid down in the said decisions. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the AO has not disputed the fact that the lease is Long term lease/licence and is not of recurring in nature. In view of these facts and the ratio laid down in the above said decision, we find no…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1165/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Retail Service Ltd, Tax-7(1), Room No.622, (Formerly Knows As Pyramid Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Retails Ltd, Now Known As M K Road, M/S Store One Retails India Mumbai-400020 (Ltd),11Th Floor, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcp5164C आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5732/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, M K Road, Connaught Place, Mumbai-400020 New Delhi-110001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6081/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Indiabulls Wholesale Tax-3(2), Services Ltd, Vs. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, 14Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Centre, M K Road, Tower No.1, Plot No.612-613, Mumbai-400020 Elibhinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabci7129N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Javed Akhatar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By S/Shri Jitendra Sangvi & Amit Khatiwalla

…ere of revenue nature which were incurred for the purpose of lease transactions and not for the purchase of capital assets . The ld. CIT(A), decided the issue in favor of the assessee by following the decision rendered in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd, 169 ITR 516 ( Bom) and CIT vs. Cinecia P. Ltd. 137 ITR 652(Bom) and rightly followed the ratio laid down in the said decisions. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the AO has not disputed the fact that the lease is Long term lease/licence and is not of recurring in nature. In view of these facts and the ratio laid down in the above said decision, we find no…