Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT

120 ITR 211High Court1979#22187 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…irmed. This ground is thus decided against the Appellant.” 13. The Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Super Spinning Mills Ltd (2008) 296 ITR 168 (Mad) and CIT vs Sri Meenkshi Mills Ltd (1979) 120 ITR 211 (Mad). The Ld. counsel submitted that Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that ‘upfront fee’ paid to the bank for availing loan for purchase of capital asset is allowable as revenue expenditure and same does not bring into existence an asset of enduring nature. The Ld. counsel submitted that ‘upfront fee’ has to be paid to the bank even if loan is…

DCIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi vs. L&T Sucg Jv CC27, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 4457/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Goel, C.As And Shri Nirbhay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…e could be made. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that no addition should have been maintained. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd., vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 211 (Madras) in which it was held as under : 87 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. “Where the assessee-company purchased for its business some machinery from abroad on deferred payment basis and had to pay some commission to a bank which had guaranteed the installment payments by it : Held that the expenditure incurred fo…

L&T Sucg Jv CC27, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-62, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 4351/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Goel, C.As And Shri Nirbhay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…e could be made. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that no addition should have been maintained. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd., vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 211 (Madras) in which it was held as under : 87 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. “Where the assessee-company purchased for its business some machinery from abroad on deferred payment basis and had to pay some commission to a bank which had guaranteed the installment payments by it : Held that the expenditure incurred fo…

Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT (120 ITR 211) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax