How many judgments cite Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT?

343 judgments on BharatTax cite Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT (372 ITR 605), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 263, Section 271(1)(c), Section 148.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

372 ITR 605Supreme Court of India2015#223 most cited

What is Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

An expenditure does not automatically become capital in nature merely because it results in some enduring benefit for the assessee; it can be treated as revenue expenditure if incurred for genuine business purposes.

343

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT · 372 ITR 605 · SC · 2015 · section 37(1) · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · enduring benefit test · deferred revenue expenditure · expenditure disallowance · business expenditure · allowability of expenditure

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 361276 CTR 1231 Taxmann 5

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 263 Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 14A Section 115JB

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80ab section 54e section 80m section 10(33)section 10(15)section 14a(1)section 54ec long-term capital asset section 36(1)(viii)mat credit disallowance of interest expenditure

Judgments citing Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

M/S Sterling Urban Development Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

ITA 3282/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

For Appellant: Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144C

…ion does not distinguish between money borrowed for capital or revenue purposes. The new facility had been started for captive consumption, i.e., for the purpose of its existing business. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Taparia Tools [2015] 372 ITR 605 (SC) to hold that the taxpayer had paid accrued return and premium for early foreclosure and claimed the entire expenditure by way of interest liability during the year under which the same was expended. It was not the case of contingent liability, as it would absolve future payment of such liability. In what manner the taxpayer raises its requir…

Pune Solapur Expressways P.Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 250(6)Section 253Section 32

…" as per the CBDT's circular (supra) also fails to make any difference since the same could not be taken as an attempt at the Board's part to deny depreciation relief in any manner; whatsoever. Hon'ble apex court's decision Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2015) [372 ITR 605] (SC) holds that the mere option of amortisation would not debar an expenditure claim which is otherwise admissible as per law. We thus affirm the CIT(A)'s findings qua the first issue of depreciation disallowance. The Revenue's corresponding grounds are rejected. 12. We find, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of BSC C&C Kurali Toll R…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5380 & 5381/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) बिधम/ Dcit-6(1)(2) M/S. Axis Asset Management Room No.506, 5Th Floor, Co. Ltd. Vs. Axis House, 1St Floor, C-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai- Wadala International Centre, 400020. Panduranga Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahca5892 (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.5380/Mum/2019 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.04.2019 Passed By The Cit(A)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. Ita Nos. 5380 & 5381/Mum/2019 A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(2)

…s and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,50,40,070/- made on account of deferred brokerage expenditure relying on Hon‟ble Apex Court decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported Court in 372 ITR 605 (SC) without appreciating the fact that in the instant case, income is offered by the assessee for more than one year and hence, as per revenue matching principle, expenditure has to be claimed for more than one year and not in the first yea itself; and hence, the facts are distinguishable. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 03, New Delhi vs. Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5941/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Shri R.S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel

Section 14A

…) who deleted the addition as per finding record at Para 20.1 of the impugned order. The CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of Apex I.T.As. No.5940 & 5941/DEL/2017 and CO No.5 & 6/DEL/2021 18 Court in the case of S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 and M/s. Taparia Tools 372 ITR 605 (SC) while holding that assessing officer was not empowered to make addition of notional interest. 16.3 We have considered the assessment order and order passed by CIT(A). The issue under consideration is addition of interest over and above what has been charged by the assessee on loans given to group concerns on the ground that the interest so…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

ITA/548/2015HC Karnataka02 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 260Section 260A

…e Assessing Officer. Thus, the said loss was allowed as a deduction. 12. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:- “18. In the instant case, as noticed above, the assessee did not want spread over of this expenditure over a period of five years as in the return filed by it, it had claimed the entire interest paid upfront as deductible expenditure in the same year. In such a situation, when this cours…

DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kdd India P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3408/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vikas Awasthyआ.अ. सं. 3408/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Gurbinder SinghFor Respondent: Shri Lalchand Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…pted the order of CIT(A), the present appeal by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on the ground of consistency. The ld. AR further submitted that on merits, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v/s JCIT, 372 ITR 605 (SC) and CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.). The ld. AR pointed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision held that accounting treatment of any expenditure would not determine the allowability, if the expenditure is otherwise revenue in nature and the claim has been made by the assessee in its return of…

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Utv Software Communicatin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vatsalya Saxena

Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6292/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–16(1), Mumbai v/s UTV Software Communication Ltd. 1st Floor, Building no.14, Solitaire Corporate Park, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala ……………. Respondent Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 PAN – AAACU4122G Revenue by : Shri Vatsalya Saxena Assessee by : Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Date of Hearing – 28.06.2021 Date of Order – 31.08.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…

M/S. the India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath,CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2021

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…rds arguments of the Principal CIT that whether total amount incurred for premium paid on redemption of debentures is deductible or not, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue in the case of M/s. Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) , where it is clearly held that there is no estoppel against the statute. The Income Tax Act, enables and entitles the assessee to claim the entire expenditure in the manner it is claimed. In other words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that whether expenditure has been claimed when it was paid at once or has been spread over period…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5379/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1 1,26,94,520/- made on account of deferred brokerage expenditure relying on Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Taparia Tools Ltd vs. JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) without appreciating the fact that In the instant case, income is offered by the assessee for more than one year and hence, as per revenue matching principle, expenditure has to be claimed for more than one year and not in the first year itself; and hence, the facts are distinguishable.. 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT (Appe…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/214/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

…ld be spread in equal proportion over the tenure of the lease i.e. 90 years, it was assailed on the following grounds. a) The Tribunal failed to appreciate the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), which categorically held that, the Act did not recognise the concept of deferred revenue expenditure. b) The Tribunal erred in travelling beyond the scope of the appeal before it and the case set up by the revenue, and thus, acted contrary to the mandate of Section 254 of the Act. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal was not put to t…

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/215/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

Technologies Ltd) vs. ACIT

Appeals are allowed

ITA/213/2020HC Delhi05 Jul 2021

For Appellant: -.................................................................... 8For Respondent: - .................................................................. 10

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 35D

Amar Adak, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T.Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2642/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No. 2642/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amar Adak.............................................................................................................................Appellant [PAN: ADDPA 3831 B] Vs. ACIT, Circle-46, Kolkata................................................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Supriyo Paul, Addl. CIT, appeared on b…

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

ITA 1649/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & DCIT – 1(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Maharashtra State R.No.535, 5th Floor Electricity Board B.A. Section, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 Prakashganga, Plot No.C- 19, ‘E’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAACM7507P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.198/Mum/2010 (Arising out of ITA No.1649/Mum/2010) (Assessment Year :2004-05) & CO No.171/Mum/2010 (Arising out of ITA No.945/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year :2005-06) M/s. Maharashtra State Vs. DCIT – 1(2), Mumbai…

M/S. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 09.02.2021

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…submitted that the asset was already put to use by the appellant by way of commencement of the housing project. The appellant also raised the issue pertaining to “matching concept”. The company cited the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 372 ITR 605 in the case of Taparia Teds Ltd vs JCIT. The Apex Court had ruled that revenue expenditure incurred n a particular year had to be allowed in that year. Hence) it was claimed that the interest expenditure incurred during the A.Y ought to have been allowed in the computation of taxable total income. In their written submissions the appellant drew a…

Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4133/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…termined as allowable expenditure by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following cases:- (a) Kedarnath Jute Mill Company Ltd. 82 ITR 363. (b) (b) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. 166 ITR 1 (c) United Commercial Bank 240 ITR 355 (d) Taparia Tools Ltd. 372 ITR 605 These expenses were incurred in the course of business of assessee and were let out as well as expanded wholly and exclusively for the business purpose only. Though in the original order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has not taken cognizance of this aspect and the assessee also has not made this 4 claim it is not justifiable on the part o…

DCIT, CC-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sathyanarayanan, C.A ""For Respondent: 11.02.2021

…account could not be a factor to deprive assessee from claiming entire expenditure as a deduction in the year of incurrence itself. 2 1.2. CIT(A) erred in relying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Taparia Tours Ltd. v. JCIT,(2015) 372 ITR 605(SC) which pertains to issue of debentures. 1.3 CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that when the debentures were issued, the income from them was realized in the same year of issuance, thus the entire interest payment claimed as deduction is allowable. Whereas in the instant case, the income from the loans was not received during the finan…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S. Telco Construction

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/336/2014HC Karnataka16 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260Section 40

…liance has been placed on decisions in BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CIT, (1996) 219 ITR 410 (SC), TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. VS. JCIT, 372 ITR 605, STEAM NAVIGATION CO, (1953) (P) LTD. VS. CIT, (1965) 56 ITR 52 and EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC). 11 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in RADHASOAMI SATSANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’ (1992) 60 TAXMAN 248 (SC) has hel…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1521/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1516 to 1521/Bang/2019 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 to 2015-16 M/s. Alpha Design Technologies Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(2), No.9, Interface Accolade, Bangalore. Service Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, The Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore – 560 008. Income Tax, PAN: AAECA 3323P Circle 11(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CA Respondent by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1520/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37