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 367,181 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 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 148Section 14ASection 115JB
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80absection 54esection 80msection 10(33)section 10(15)section 14a(1)section 54eclong-term capital assetsection 36(1)(viii)mat creditdisallowance of interest expenditure

Judgments citing Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

M/S Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 5847/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2001-02 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…as an allowable deduction in assessment year 2001-02 initially u/s 143(3) of the Act and also in assessment year 2003-04. The Ld. AR also submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605(SC), the impugned payments were allowable as deduction in the year in which they were claimed/spent. 10.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the grounds in assessment year 2003-04 were identical to ground no. 5, 6, 7 & 8 in assessment year 2004-05, ground no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in assessment year 2005-06 and ground no. 3, 4, 5, 6 in assessment year 2006…

M/S High Range Coffee Curing Pvt Ltd, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2526/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. High Range Coffee Curing Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1), Mysore Madikere Road, Mysuru. Abbur, Periyapatna, Mysore District – 571 107. Pan : Aaach 8173 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

…able to controvert the finding of the authorities below or to establish its claim being allowed as deferred revenue expenditure. In this regard, even the judicial precedents are against the assessee’s claim. In the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., Vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Act except under specified sections i.e., such as in section 35D of the Act. Normally, the ordinary rule to be applied is that revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year and if so claimed, Revenue cannot be de…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Specialty Restaurants Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 30

…books of account. Accordingly, following the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the hon'ble Mumbai has allowed the claim of the assessee. Finally, the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd .., 372 ITR 605(SC) wherein it has been held as under: "(iv) That the assessee did not seek to spread this expenditure over a period of five years as in its return, it had claimed the entire interest paid upfront as deductible expenditure in the same year. When this course of action was permissible in law to the assessee as it was in consonance with the provisio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. SC Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 4255/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…ability to pay is incurred. Even though the amount becomes due or payable at a later date, but, the decisive criterion for deductibility is the incurring of liability and not its actual payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), has held that the ordinary rule is that : `revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. SC Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 3759/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…ability to pay is incurred. Even though the amount becomes due or payable at a later date, but, the decisive criterion for deductibility is the incurring of liability and not its actual payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), has held that the ordinary rule is that : `revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years,…

SC Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 3341/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…ability to pay is incurred. Even though the amount becomes due or payable at a later date, but, the decisive criterion for deductibility is the incurring of liability and not its actual payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), has held that the ordinary rule is that : `revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years,…

SC Johnson Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 3340/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

…ability to pay is incurred. Even though the amount becomes due or payable at a later date, but, the decisive criterion for deductibility is the incurring of liability and not its actual payment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC), has held that the ordinary rule is that : `revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year is to be allowed in that year. Thus, if the assessee claims that expenditure in that year, the IT Department cannot deny the same. However, in those cases where the assessee himself wants to spread the expenditure over a period of ensuing years,…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1617/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…nature of debt and conversion thereof into equity, was solely at the option of the bond-holder. the future liability and create provisions in respect thereof. The Ld. AR reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Limited vs JCIT: 372 ITR 605, is very much applicable in the present case. The Apex Court further held that, one time upfront discounted interest payment in respect of 5 years debentures was to be allowed as deduction in year of payment itself. The Apex Court also held that a different treatment towards interest in books of accounts could not be a factor which would deprive…

M/S. Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2395/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…nature of debt and conversion thereof into equity, was solely at the option of the bond-holder. the future liability and create provisions in respect thereof. The Ld. AR reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Limited vs JCIT: 372 ITR 605, is very much applicable in the present case. The Apex Court further held that, one time upfront discounted interest payment in respect of 5 years debentures was to be allowed as deduction in year of payment itself. The Apex Court also held that a different treatment towards interest in books of accounts could not be a factor which would deprive…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moser Baer India Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1200/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…nature of debt and conversion thereof into equity, was solely at the option of the bond-holder. the future liability and create provisions in respect thereof. The Ld. AR reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Limited vs JCIT: 372 ITR 605, is very much applicable in the present case. The Apex Court further held that, one time upfront discounted interest payment in respect of 5 years debentures was to be allowed as deduction in year of payment itself. The Apex Court also held that a different treatment towards interest in books of accounts could not be a factor which would deprive…

Moserbaer India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblemoserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Income Tax Phase-Iii Circle 5(1) New Delhi-110020 New Delhi Aaam0322J (Respondent) (Appellant) Astt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Moserbaer India Ltd. Circle 5(1) Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, New Delhi Phase-Iii New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) Aaam0322J (Respondent) Moserbaer India Ltd. Vs Dcit Tax, 43-A, Okhla Indl Area, Circle 17(1) Phase-Iii New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Respondent) Aaam0322J (Appellant)

Section 10BSection 143Section 144CSection 14A

…nature of debt and conversion thereof into equity, was solely at the option of the bond-holder. the future liability and create provisions in respect thereof. The Ld. AR reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Limited vs JCIT: 372 ITR 605, is very much applicable in the present case. The Apex Court further held that, one time upfront discounted interest payment in respect of 5 years debentures was to be allowed as deduction in year of payment itself. The Apex Court also held that a different treatment towards interest in books of accounts could not be a factor which would deprive…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3476/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…dopted amortization, and the AO has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation. We found that in a subsequent decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., 372 ITR 605 after considering its decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [1997] 225 ITR 802, has held that notwithstanding the accounting treatment followed by an assessee, expenditure incurred during the year has to be allowed in full irrespective of the action of the Assessee of amortizing it . Respectfully following the decision…

M/S. Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd., [Now Known As Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 813/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Pr. Cit, Circle-1, Kolkata (Now Known As Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd) [Pan: Aaach 7475 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ct mentioned exchange fluctuation loss in its books and for income tax purposes and hence the ld CIT was right in pointing out this error that had crept in the order of the ld AO. We hold that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) had held that the entries in the books of accounts are not relevant for determination of income for income tax purposes. As far as income tax proceedings are concerned, there is no dispute that the assessee had been consistently claiming the said loss as a deduction in the past. Hence no error could be attributed in his order by the ld CIT i…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2088/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…expenditure as the one in hand before us ought not to have been treated as a revenue item of claim in the lower appellate proceedings. Coming to enduring advantage spread over number of years hon'ble apex court’s decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC) rejects Revenue’s similar reasoning in concluding that such an approach does not form a justifiable ground to reject a claim of revenue expenditure. We further reiterate that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs.Tasati Tea Ltd (2003) 263 ITR 388 (Cal) also holds similar expenditure to be revenue ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 A…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Goodrick Group Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2087/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…expenditure as the one in hand before us ought not to have been treated as a revenue item of claim in the lower appellate proceedings. Coming to enduring advantage spread over number of years hon'ble apex court’s decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC) rejects Revenue’s similar reasoning in concluding that such an approach does not form a justifiable ground to reject a claim of revenue expenditure. We further reiterate that hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs.Tasati Tea Ltd (2003) 263 ITR 388 (Cal) also holds similar expenditure to be revenue ITA No.2086-2088/Kol/2016 A…

Sumangla Developes & Farms P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 182/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 182/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(u)

…contended that once the assessing officer as well as CIT(A) has accepted that the part of interest is liable, he could not disallow part of the same. For this he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. VS JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605(SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once it is found that the funds were borrowed for the business purpose only then the interest claim thereon has to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the 6 Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the portion of judgement which reads as under: - “9. Ignoring the proviso and the Ex…

Grp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1727/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1727/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grp Limited बिधम/ Dcit-10(2) 510, ‘A’ Wing, Kohinoor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. City Commercial-1, Kirol Road, Mumbai-400020. Road, L. B. Shashtri Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400070. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1890M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Being Aggrieved Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Mumbai, This Appeal Petition Is Being Filed Lo Consider The Following Grounds Of Appeal, Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other

For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…A). The contention of the assessee is that the assessee expended the said amount in the year of consideration, therefore, the same is liable to be allowable in view of the law settled in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. ITA. No.1727/M/16 A.Y.2011-12 JCIT (372 ITR 605), Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (225 ITR 802 (SC). It is also argued that the advertisement also relates to future year but the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. (292 ITR 399) and DCIT Vs. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. (2011) 11 taxmann.com 444 (Trib.) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Hon’…

ACIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Techno Doors Private Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 16/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & C.O. No. 55/Chny/2018[In I.T.A. No. 16/Chny/2018] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Techno Doors Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Vs. Plot No. L-1, Sipcot Industrial Parks, New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Mambakkam, Pondur “A” Village, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Chennai 600 034. Kancheepuram 602 106. [Pan:Aacct4786F] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit Assessee By : Shri K. Senguttuvan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 25.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Besides Challenging Deletion Of Disallowance Of Exhibition Expenses At ₹.25,78,256/-, The Revenue Also Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.6,15,26,406/- Made At The Rate Of 5% To 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Senguttuvan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…he benefits are enduring in nature and hence the Assessing Officer rightly brought the same under capital field. 9. On the other hand, besides relying on various decisions including the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. 372 ITR 605, by filing copy of the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Dorcas Market Makers P. Ltd. 2012 (11) TMI 541 – ITAT Chennai, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and prayed for similar directions on this issue. 10. We have heard rival contention…