Sugar Factory & Oils Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT

125 ITR 293Supreme Court of India1980#971 most cited

What is Sugar Factory & Oils Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for improving business operations or facilitating business conduct, even if the advantage endures indefinitely, is generally on revenue account if it leaves the fixed capital untouched.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT · 125 ITR 293 · SC · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit · business operations · fixed capital untouched · facilitating business

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 254

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 62section 35ddsection 35denduring benefit

Judgments citing Sugar Factory & Oils Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4754/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/s. NTPC Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1), Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) ITA No.4183/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DCIT, Circle 13 (1), vs. M/s. NTPC Limited, New Delhi. Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advoca…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4183/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4754/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/s. NTPC Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1), Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi. 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) ITA No.4183/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DCIT, Circle 13 (1), vs. M/s. NTPC Limited, New Delhi. Core – 7, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. (PAN : AAACN0255D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advoca…

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

…nly advantage which it had obtained was the lease of a new building at low rent. After adverting to the earlier judgments of the Court in Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 376 (SC) , L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 293/4 Taxman 5 ($C) and CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 /38 Taxman 11OA (SC) the Supreme Court observed as follows: "All these cases have looked upon expenditure which did bring about some kind of an enduring benefit to the company as a revenue expenditure when the expenditure did not bring into existence any capital asset…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1976/KOL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.……......………..…..................Appellant Vs. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals.....……………...........…………..……………………...……..….…….......Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower-1, Block-Em Plot No. 3 Salt Lake City Sector-V, 3Rd Floor Kolkata -91 [Pan : Aaach 7360 R]

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata.……......………..…..................Appellant Vs. M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals.....……………...........…………..……………………...……..….…….......Respondent Bengal Eco Intelligent Park (Techno) Tower-1, Block-EM Plot No. 3 Salt Lake City Sector-V, 3rd Floor Kolkata -91 [PAN : AAACH 7360 R] Appearances by: Shri Harkamal Chakravorty, Sr. General Manager, Finance & Accounts, appeared on behalf of…

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…said that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC) : TC 16R.1358. In the said case, it was held that the expenditure was made for the purpose of construction of roads in area around a factory which were wholly and exclusively laid out for business. The Supreme Court held that it was not a capital expenditure but a revenue expenditure and the entire expenditure was allowable as deduction. In…

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…said that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC) : TC 16R.1358. In the said case, it was held that the expenditure was made for the purpose of construction of roads in area around a factory which were wholly and exclusively laid out for business. The Supreme Court held that it was not a capital expenditure but a revenue expenditure and the entire expenditure was allowable as deduction. In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ultra International Ltd, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Ultra International Ltd. Circle-27(1), Room No. 193, 304, Avg Bhawan, M-3, C.R. Building Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Aaacu1089Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs Ultra International Ltd. Circle-27(1), Room No. 193, 304, AVG Bhawan, M-3, C.R. Building Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi AAACU1089Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Anoop Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Ravindra Agarwal, CA, Sumit Bansal, CA Date of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 04.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 23/02/2015 passed by CIT(A)-22, New Delhi for As…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

…d rent. The High Court had, therefore, rightly considered this as obtaining a business advantage. The expenditure was, therefore, to be treated as revenue expenditure. " 18. In the case of L. H. Sugar Factory and Oils Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “…….. although the advantage secured was of long duration, it was not an advantage in the capital field because no tangible or intangible asset was acquired by the assessee; nor was there any addition to or expansion of the profit-making apparatus of the assessee. The amount was contributed for the purpose of fa…

ACIT, Circle-1 vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 374/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…n support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decisions in the following cases: a) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services [P] Ltd 233 ITR 468 [SC] b) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 [SC] c) L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293 [SC] d) CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies ltd 172 ITR 257 [SC] e) CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 [DEL] 68. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are misplaced. It is the say of the ld. DR that the helipad belongs to the assessee and to protect the same from overflow of water,…

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-I

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shefali Swaroop, CIT- DR

…n support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decisions in the following cases: a) CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services [P] Ltd 233 ITR 468 [SC] b) Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 82 ITR 376 [SC] c) L.H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293 [SC] d) CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies ltd 172 ITR 257 [SC] e) CIT Vs. DTTDC Ltd 350 ITR 1 [DEL] 68. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are misplaced. It is the say of the ld. DR that the helipad belongs to the assessee and to protect the same from overflow of water,…

Sun Minerals, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessees' are dismissed

ITA 138/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Sun Minerals Vs D.C.I.T., Circle 6 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Abgfs5262D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…the Tribunal in the case of Davinder Singh v. ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ASR), CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) (SC), Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (73 ITR 634) (SC) and L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR) (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC). 12. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (88 ITD 95) held as under; "51. Examining this matter from another angle, we feel that the onus of proof that the commission paid was genuine was on the assessee. The question that further arises is as to whether the a…

Dy. C.I.T.1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Jspl, Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 210/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICAL MEMBER DCIT-1(1), Bilaspur- vs JSPL, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(CG) PAN No. : AABCJ 4683 J (Appellant) .. tsednepseR Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR Assessee by : Shri Mayank Jain, AR Date of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Bilaspur, dated 31.03.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4838/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.4382/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Dy CIT 10(2)(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4838/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy CIT Range 10(2)(2) Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Mumbai Mumbai 400 099 Vs. PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is

ITA 4382/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.4382/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Dy CIT 10(2)(2) Finance Department, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Terminal 1B, Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 099 PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4838/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy CIT Range 10(2)(2) Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Mumbai Mumbai 400 099 Vs. PAN : AAECM6285C (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. [2002] 253 ITR 667 (Mad). We noted that in this case, the Hon’ble High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory And Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 293 (SC), held as under: “Held, that, in the present case, the bridge was built by the Government and the assessee did not acquire any ownership over the bridge by paying contribution towards construction of the bridge. The assessee received no addition to the value of any of the assets owned by it for the payment. The bridge merely facilitated the…