Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd. v. CIT Delhi

55 ITR 550High Court1965#10667 most cited

What is Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd. v. CIT Delhi authority for?

The Delhi High Court's decision in Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd. v. CIT Delhi (1965) is cited to establish that certain expenditures may not be allowable deductions under Section 30(a)(i) or Section 37 if they constitute additions to buildings.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd v CIT Delhi · 55 ITR 550 · allowable deduction · Section 30(a)(i) · Section 37 · addition to buildings · depreciation

Judgments citing Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd. v. CIT Delhi

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…ch expenses and therefore they were capital in nature. 7. The Ld.AO thus disallowed Rs.3,08,74,000/- under section 37(1) of the Act. In support the Ld.AO relied on: CIT vs.Pandian Chemicals reported in 233 ITR 497 Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. vs. CIT reorted in 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 290 CIT vs.Kirloskar Tractors Ltd reported in 231 ITR 849 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.CIT(A) while considering disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake m…

Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…ch expenses and therefore they were capital in nature. 7. The Ld.AO thus disallowed Rs.3,08,74,000/- under section 37(1) of the Act. In support the Ld.AO relied on: CIT vs.Pandian Chemicals reported in 233 ITR 497 Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. vs. CIT reorted in 55 ITR 550 Vikram Mills Ltd vs. CIT reported in 242 ITR 290 CIT vs.Kirloskar Tractors Ltd reported in 231 ITR 849 Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.CIT(A) while considering disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake m…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2014/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2013/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2012/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2011/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1740/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1604/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ears. As the facts are difference on some counts, the decision cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. 2.2) CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Uttar Bhaat Wool Exchange Ltd Vs CIT Delhi reported in 55 ITR 550 2.3) CIT(A) failed to note that, this expenditure is not an allowable deduction either according to the provisions of section 30(a) (i) or according to the provisions of section section 37. Since the expenditure incurred is in the nature of addition to buildings falling in the block of assets under the category ‘buildings’ which are not used main…

M/S. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2687/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ourt decision, the question was of a third party's liability to pay estate duty and the discharge by an assessee. It was obviously a purpose unconnected with the business of the assessee. The other two decisions, viz., Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 550 (Punj) and Taj Mahal Hotel v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 303 (AP) refer to the expenditure incurred by an assessee on alterations and additions made by an assesses in leasehold premises. No doubt, such expenditure was held to be of capital nature. We fail to understand how those decisions have any bearing on the point in issue before us. 14. Having regard…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Cylinders Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7337/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Cylinders Pvt. Income Tax- 3(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor 181, Maker Tower, Aayakar Bhavan “E”, Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccr8653D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ourt decision, the question was of a third party's liability to pay estate duty and the discharge by an assessee. It was obviously a purpose unconnected with the business of the assessee. The other two decisions, viz., Uttar Bharat Exchange Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 550 (Punj) and Taj Mahal Hotel v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 303 (AP) refer to the expenditure incurred by an assessee on alterations and additions made by an assesses in leasehold premises. No doubt, such expenditure was held to be of capital nature. We fail to understand how those decisions have any bearing on the point in issue before us. 14. Having regard…