Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 41(1), Section 14A, Section 40(a)(ia), Section 37(1).

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT?

621 judgments on BharatTax cite Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172), spanning 2007 to 2026.

227 ITR 172Supreme Court of India1997#96 most cited

What is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

621

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,887 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT · 227 ITR 172 · Section 28 · Section 56 · Section 57 · income from other sources · business income · interest income · commencement of business · capitalization of interest · year of expenditure claim

Also reported as

141 CTR 387

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 14A Section 40(a)(ia)Section 37(1)Section 147 Section 28(iv)

Issues it is cited on

section 57 profits and gains of business or profession section 56 section 32 revenue expenditure income from other sources section 28 section 37(1)capital expenditure section 43 section 37 previous year

Judgments citing Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

Surela Investment & Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3770/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

…g officer has rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Shri Sukhdeodas Jalan vs. CII 1954, 26 ITR 617 and ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 227 ITR 172. On the other side, the facts of the oases relied upon by the appellant, are not identical to the appellant's case. 6.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to interfere in the action of the assessing officer, which appear to be very reasonable by applying 3% on WIP and rejecting the project completio…

Surlela Investment & Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 546/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…ajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Navsara Sagar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspapers Ltd. 53 ITR 250 (SC), Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. 36 ITR 329 (Bom), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh s. CIT 193 ITR 321 & CIT vs. Gopala Naicker Bangura 344 ITR 297. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Lexi P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6162/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2011-12 Dcit-8(2), M/S Lexi Pvt. Ltd. R. No.209, B-33, 6Th Floor, Lexi Centre, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Off. New Link Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Anderi (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 Pan No.Aaacl7243D (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 801Section 80ISection 8O

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2011-12 DCIT-8(2), M/s Lexi Pvt. Ltd. R. No.209, B-33, 6th Floor, Lexi Centre, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Off. New Link Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Anderi (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 PAN No.AAACL7243D (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav- राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by DR "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Dat…

The Rajasthan State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 266/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke M/s The Rajasthan Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. State Co-operative Tax, Circle-06, Jaipur Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, Apex Building, Nehru Bazar, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAT0824G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. S…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Smart Digivision Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6112/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amrit Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Jain, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147

…CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 08.08.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following ground : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 227 ITR 172 (SC) 1997.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing IPTV (Internet Protocol Tele Vision) services all over 2 ITA No.6112/Del./2013 India in 53 cities, for which the company has entered into an agreement with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…on that treatment of a transaction in books of accounts cannot govern the tax statement reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tutcorin Alali Chemicals Ltd in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefit of Sec 80IA and an assessee who does not raise interna…

M/S.. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6006/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act [See - Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 & ITA No. 5807/Del/2013 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC). 20. At the most, an inference can be drawn that by showing this expenditure in a spread over manner in the books of account, the assessee had initially intended to make such a…

M/S.. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Synthes Medical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5807/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Bank Note Paper Mill India (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 692/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bank Note Paper Mill India Pvt. Ltd. I Floor, Sr Complex, No.2, Tavarakere Main Road, Sg Paly, Drc Post, Bengaluru-560029. … Respondent Pan:Aaecb 3245M & Cross Objn.No.177/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.692/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) (By The Assessee) ***** Assessee By : Shri S.Parthasarathi, Advocate. Revenue By : Smt.Swapna Das, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…come so received from the pre- operative expenditure incurred by the company, whereas the Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (227 ITR 172), interest income is chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other ITA No.692 & CO 177/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 14 sources’. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (156 ITR 542). 3. Being aggrieved by the above decision, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(…

Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2298/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

For Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)

…nt u/s 143(3) by relying on the following decisions: i) South India Shipping Corp. Ltd V/s CIT -240 ITR 24(Mad); ii) CIT V/s Delhi Brass and Metal Works Ltd 313 ITR 352; iii) CIT V/s Dr.V.P.Gopinathan iv) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd V/s CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC); v) Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd V/s CIT 251 ITR 329 (SC) 4. The FAA also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the submissions and contentions as raised during the appellate proceedings by observing and holding as under: “4.3, I have carefully considered the facts stated by the A.O. in the impugned order as w…

Navi Mumbai Sez P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4425/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am Navi Mumbai Sez P. Ltd Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jai Centre, 1St Floor, 34 Pd Circle-7, Mumbai Vs. Mello Rd, Opp Rd Gate Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0042N Assessee By .. S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By .. Shri N. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 09-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 09-03-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 56Section 57Section 57(3)

…against expenses for capitalization where the same were liable for taxations as ‘income from other sources’.” The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through Para 3 of the revision order of CIT(A) which reads as under: - “3. (ii) In Tuticorin Alkalies 227 ITR 172 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest income is always of a revenue in nature, if a person borrows money for business purposes but utilizes that money to earn, interest, however temporarily, the interest so generated will be his income. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the income can be utilized 3)' the assessee whichever Page…

Cairn Uk Holding Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…if the amount is recorded as gain in the books of CUHL, it will not necessarily be taxable as per the provisions of the Act. 2.83. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case ofTuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd v CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC) wherein it was held that It is wherein it was that "// is true that this Court has very often referred to accounting practice for ascertainment of profit Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 118 made by a company or value of the assets of a company. But when the question is whether a…

M/S. Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 861/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2009-10 Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A-14, Lgf, Central Circle-7, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9706A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Department By : Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 22.8.2013 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80Ib In Respect Of Bank Interest Of Rs.20,75,862/- Which Was Treated By The Ao As ‘Income From Other Sources.’

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR

Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, A-14, LGF, Central Circle-7, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAECA9706A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, CA Department By : Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 22.8.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is agains…

Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the disallowance made by the AO is directed to be withdrawn

ITA 881/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 143(1)

…s Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1369/Mds/02, dated November 11, 2002, wherein on identical issue the Tribunal considering the various Supreme Court decisions observed and held as under: '4. The Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 172 was considering investment of borrowed funds prior to commencement of business and held that the interest earned was taxable. In Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315, it was a case of a Government company which during the period of construction of the plant 7 I.T.A. No.881/Mds/2015 had advanced monies to contractors on which it was earning inte…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Vatika Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2331/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vatika Hospitality Central Circle-20, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Room No. 333, E- 621A, Devika Tower, 2, Ara Centre, 6, Nehru Tower, New Jhandewalan Extn, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacv0695D (Appellant) (Respondent) Vatika Hospitality Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-20, Vs. 621A, Devika Tower, Room No. 333, 6, Nehru Tower, New E-2, Ara Centre, Delhi Jhandewalan Pan:Aaacv0695D Extn, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. CS Agarwal, Sr. Adv

Section 271

…that it has been capitalized in the books of account by itself is insufficient to hold that such expenditure incurred was not revenue expenditure in nature. For this he referred to the celebrated decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Page 7 of 21 Court in case of 227 ITR 172. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Hi line pens private limited 306 ITR 182 wherein the Hon‟ble high court has held that the expenditure incurred on repairs and operation of leasehold premises is revenue expenditure. He further submitted that unless and until the expenditure is incurr…

Susanta Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri H.S Bhattacharjee,AR for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘A’ BENCH KOLKATA Before : Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2006-07 Susanta Biswas Vs. Income Tax Officer PAN: AGEPB8054D Ward 50(4), Kolkata [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by : Shri H.S Bhattacharjee,AR for the assessee Respondent by : Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 08-12-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2017 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30-07-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), XXXII, Kolkata…