RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT

386 ITR 401High Court2016#7013 most cited

What is RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for repair/renovation of leased premises is capital in nature, unless it qualifies as a revenue expenditure.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also referred to as

RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · leased premises · repair · renovation · Bombay High Court

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 468/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 467/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 466/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai vs. M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 465/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 422/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 421/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 420/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

M/S Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(ITA no

ITA 419/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40

…v. ETA Travel Agency Private Limited reported in (2019) 109 taxmann.com 66(Madras) , CIT v. Viswams reported in (2019) 105 taxmann.com 289(Madras) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 401(Bom.) are relevant. The assessee is directed to provide details of each of these expenses incurred by it to enable authorities to arrive at decisions whether the expenses were incurred on capital field or were revenue in nature. Needless to say that the AO shall provide with proper and effective opportunity of heard to the assessee in accordance…

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…partial relief to the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer should be restored. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) RPG Enterprises Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2016] 386 ITR 401 (Bom.); ii) Vardhman Developers Ltd. v/s ITO, [2015] 68 SOT 107 (Mum.) (URO); and iii) ITO v/s Pritam Juice, [2010] 124 ITD 237 (Mum.). 20. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. The issue before us is, whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee t…

ITO 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Thebroma Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)(3) M/S. Theobroma Foods R.No. 672, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 101, Jamuna Sagar, V. M.K. Road, 59/60, Shahid Bhagat New Marine Lines, Singh Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct0588K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Rohan Deshpande सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 765/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 28.10.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-344/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.765/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 30

…g nature was obtained by the assessee or not. Then only conclusion can be arrived at as to whether these expenses are to be capitalised or to be held as revenue expenses. The decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of RPG Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 386 ITR 401 becomes relevant, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “5. We find that the appellant was a tenant of the said premises. It was paying monthly rent of Rs. 73,530/- from April, 1995 onwards under the agreement dated 15th February, 1995. Further the agreement provided that the cost of repairs and renovation i.e. civil, electrical, plum…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Pritamlal J. Doshi through Income Tax Officer, legal heir Shri Tushar Doshi, Ward-21(2)(2), बना M/s Natvarlal Vepari & Co. C-10, 5th Floor, म/ Chartered Accountants, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Oricon House, 4th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 12, K. Dubash Marg, Mumbai- Bandra (East), 400023 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Late Pritamlal J. Doshi through Income Tax Officer, legal heir Shri Tushar Doshi, Ward-21(2)(2), बना M/s Natvarlal Vepari & Co. C-10, 5th Floor, म/ Chartered Accountants, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Oricon House, 4th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 12, K. Dubash Marg, Mumbai- Bandra (East), 400023 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Amec Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1762/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…m, claim of the assessee was hit by Explanation (1) to Sec. 32 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case Indus Motor Company P. Ltd vs. DCIT 382 ITR 503, that of Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises vs. DCIT, 386 ITR 401 and that of Delhi High Court in the case of Bigjo’s India Ltd vs. CIT. 293 ITR 170. Further, according to him, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayesha Hospital (P) Ltd (supra) had not considered the Explanation 1 to Sec. 32 of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Ld…

Amee Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1531/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A Department by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…m, claim of the assessee was hit by Explanation (1) to Sec. 32 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case Indus Motor Company P. Ltd vs. DCIT 382 ITR 503, that of Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises vs. DCIT, 386 ITR 401 and that of Delhi High Court in the case of Bigjo’s India Ltd vs. CIT. 293 ITR 170. Further, according to him, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayesha Hospital (P) Ltd (supra) had not considered the Explanation 1 to Sec. 32 of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Ld…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Amec Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1761/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…claim of the assessee was hit by Explanation (1) to Sec. 32 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case Indus Motor Company P. Ltd vs. DCIT 382 ITR 503, that of Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises vs. DCIT, 386 ITR 401 and that of Delhi High Court in the case of Bigjo’s India Ltd vs. CIT. 293 ITR 170. Further, according to him, Hon’ble (supra) had not considered the Explanation 1 to Sec. 32 of the Act. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. Ld. Departmental Representative has placed strong reliance on Exp…

Amee Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1530/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 32(1)

…claim of the assessee was hit by Explanation (1) to Sec. 32 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case Indus Motor Company P. Ltd vs. DCIT 382 ITR 503, that of Bombay High Court in the case of RPG Enterprises vs. DCIT, 386 ITR 401 and that of Delhi High Court in the case of Bigjo’s India Ltd vs. CIT. 293 ITR 170. Further, according to him, Hon’ble (supra) had not considered the Explanation 1 to Sec. 32 of the Act. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the 7. orders of the authorities below. Ld. Departmental Representative has placed strong reliance on Exp…

RPG Enterprises Limited v. DCIT (386 ITR 401) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax