Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Hyper Realty Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

…uld govern the allowability of expenditure and not merely the manner in which it has been treated in the account books. For this aspect, a reference can be made to the reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs JCIT, 372 ITR 605 (SC). 10. So far as the stand of the Revenue that it provides enduring benefit to the business of the assessee is concerned, the same, in our view, does not ipso facto justify the treatment of such expenditure as capital in nature having regard to the facts of the case. Notably, in the instant case, as we have inferred earlier, the business of r…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Fresh Realty Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

…uld govern the allowability of expenditure and not merely the manner in which it has been treated in the account books. For this aspect, a reference can be made to the reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs JCIT, 372 ITR 605 (SC). 10. So far as the stand of the Revenue that it provides enduring benefit to the business of the assessee is concerned, the same, in our view, does not ipso facto justify the treatment of such expenditure as capital in nature having regard to the facts of the case. Notably, in the instant case, as we have inferred earlier, the business of r…

Asst CIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

…uld govern the allowability of expenditure and not merely the manner in which it has been treated in the account books. For this aspect, a reference can be made to the reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. vs JCIT, 372 ITR 605 (SC). 10. So far as the stand of the Revenue that it provides enduring benefit to the business of the assessee is concerned, the same, in our view, does not ipso facto justify the treatment of such expenditure as capital in nature having regard to the facts of the case. Notably, in the instant case, as we have inferred earlier, the business of r…

DCIT 1(2)-2, Mumbai vs. Ozoneland Agro P.Ltd, Mumbai

…e price at which the assessee has purchased the shares and aggregate of the fair market value of the shares as computed can be brought to tax as deemed income in the hands of the assessee.…..” 5.2.Here,we would like to refer to the case of Taparia Tools Ltd.(372 ITR 605)of the Hon’ble Apex Court.In that matter the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. It floated an issue of non-convertible debentures under the terms and conditions of which subscribers were given two options as regards the payment of interest thereupon : they could either receive interest half yearly at 18 per cent. per annu…

Scrabble Entertianment Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…ofit. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Apollo Tyres Ltd (2002) 122 Taxman 562 (SC). The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee has treated subsidised cost on sale of projectors and its accessories as deferred revenue expenditure and amortised over a period of a…

DCIT (TDS) Cir. - 1(2), Mumbai vs. First Source Solutions Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit (Tds)-1 (2), M/S First Source Solutions Ltd., Room No. 803, 5Th Floor, Paradigm, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., B-Wing, Mindspace Link Road, Charni Road (W), Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aaaci8904N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri F.V. Irani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The DCIT (TDS)-1 (2), M/s First Source Solutions Ltd., Room No. 803, 5th Floor, Paradigm, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., B-Wing, Mindspace Link Road, Charni Road (W), Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai - 400064 PAN: AAACI8904N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S. Padmaja (CIT DR) Assessee by : Shri F.V. Irani (AR) Date of Hearing: 13/12/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 19/01/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against o…

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.5 & 6 of the appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran,Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(3)(1), M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Aayakar Bhavan, Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.),Now Mumbai-400020. Vs. Merged With Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Dcit 3(3)(1), Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.),Now Merged With Travel Mumbai-400020. Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni Vs. House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…336(Mumbai Trib). It was further argued that learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in Taparia Tools Ltd Versus JCIT[2003] 260 ITR 102/126 Taxman 544 (Bombay) which has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide [2015] 372 ITR 605(SC). On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of Assessing Officer. It was argued that agreement entered by assessee with Anita Shirodkar provides benefits to the assessee, which is enduring in nature. However, for agreement with Arjun Sharma, it was argued that non-compete agreement with him is only in respect of destination management…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…counting, the claim of the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,50,90,000/-by the assessee as a Franchise fee for the year under consideration was well in order, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). 35. The ld. A.R in respect of its entitlement of an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- that was paid directly to Kolkata Police department for the security services to be provided at the stadium, took us through P a g e | 53 ITA No.1307/Mum/2013 AY: 2009-10 Knight Riders Sports Private Limited Vs. ACIT-Central Circle-29 the “Income and expenditure a…

Ask Property Investment Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

…Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 260 ITR 102 (Bom) among others. We find that this decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had been subsequently reversed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs JCIT reported in 372 ITR 605 (SC) . The brief facts of this case and decision rendered thereon are as below:- 5. In the assessment orders passed by the LD AO, the assessee's claim for deduction of upfront interest payment was denied. Instead, the LD AO chose to spread it over a period of five years thereby giving deduction only to the extent of 1/5th each in the respective…