Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. v. DCIT

203 CTR 587High Court2006#9519 most cited

What is Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Expenses incurred for land acquisition, diversion, development, and implementation are not necessarily capital in nature and can be treated as revenue expenditure if they do not result in an enduring benefit.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Visit Com (P) Ltd. · business expediency · enduring benefit · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · land acquisition expenses · development expenses · implementation expenses · CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd.

Issues it is cited on

section 8osection 58section 38business expediencyenduring benefitsection 2(15)admission of additional evidencesection 12aarevenue expenditurecapital expendituresection 37(1)section 37

Judgments citing Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. v. DCIT

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT ( Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 144/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 143/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 142/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Indore Development Authority, Indore vs. DCIT (Exemption Circle), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 141/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 139/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 138/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 137/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 136/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vs. Indore Development Authority, Indore

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

ITA 113/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…(2010) (4) ITR 649 (Mum), Southern Roadways Limited (2008) 220 CTR 298 (Mad), CIT vs. Indian Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 28 DTR) 265 (Bom) and Club Resorts P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 203 CTR 587 (Mad.). On considering the facts and details mentioned hereinabove the AO’s action in treating 10% of Land Acquisition, Diversion, Development and Implementation Expenses as capital expenditure is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. As a result ground nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are allowed.” 21. Ld. DR for revenue/appellant support…

Rbl Hotels Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known Ys Lebara Hotels Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 3429/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Aravindan & Shri. PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(34)Section 3Section 71(1)

…on record. The decision as relied upon by Ld. AR include the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s Ascendas IT Park Chennai Ltd. V/s DCIT (TCA ITA No.3428 & 3429/Chny/2018 No.668 of 2016 dated 27.04.2017) as well as in CIT V/s Club Resorts P. Ltd. (203 CTR 587); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (356 ITR 354) & Carefour WC&C India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT (368 ITR 692); the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Western India Vegetable Products V/s CIT (26 ITR 151) besides various other decisions of Tribunal. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that…

Rbl Hotels Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known Ys Lebara Hotels Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 3428/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Aravindan & Shri. PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(34)Section 3Section 71(1)

…on record. The decision as relied upon by Ld. AR include the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s Ascendas IT Park Chennai Ltd. V/s DCIT (TCA ITA No.3428 & 3429/Chny/2018 No.668 of 2016 dated 27.04.2017) as well as in CIT V/s Club Resorts P. Ltd. (203 CTR 587); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (356 ITR 354) & Carefour WC&C India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT (368 ITR 692); the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Western India Vegetable Products V/s CIT (26 ITR 151) besides various other decisions of Tribunal. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that…

Visit Com (P) Ltd. (2009) 176 Taxman 164 (Del) and Brehan Maharashtra Sugar Syndictate Ltd. v. DCIT (203 CTR 587) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax