Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.)

171 ITR 224High Court1988#15076 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 35dmlisection 35revenue expenditurecapital expenditurefair market valuedisallowance u/s 14ascrutiny assessmentsection 14asection 143(2)section 142(1)company

Judgments citing Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.)

Ags Transact Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai

ITA 4653/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ags Transact Technologies Dcit Circle 6(1)(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 601-602, Trade World, B Wing Mumbai-400020. S.B. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaeca 0901 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: 04/12/2024

…ala and Madras e High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High High Court Court in in Kisenchand Kisenchand Chellaram Chellaram (India) (India) P. P. Ltd. (supra). [See: [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. ), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. ), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, 175 ITR (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 220 and Fede…

Umano Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3256/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…assessee to show cause why the same be not disallowed. The assessee submitted that it is revenue expenditure and should not be disallowed relying on the decision in CIT vs. Kishenchand Chellaram (India) Pvt. Ltd. 130 ITR 385 and Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CIT 171 ITR 224 (AP). The Ld. AO did not consider the explanation satisfactory. Treating the expenditure as capital in nature, the Ld. AO 2 disallowed the same under section 37(1) of the Act and added it to the income of the assessee. 5. Similarly, software expenses of Rs. 3,00,000/- were treated as capital expenditure as against claim of the assessee that it…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Pa…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Pa…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 224; Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-11, 175 ITR 220 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala. 180 ITR 241]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this Court in m/s Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Pa…

Aakash Stone Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing

ITA 7001/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…llowing judgments to support his case that treatment of the impugned expenditure as a revenue expenditure is a possible view :- i) CIT vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd., (1981) 130 ITR 385 (Madras High Court); ii) Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CIT, (1988) 171 ITR 224 (AP High Court); iii) Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) vs. CIT, (1989) 175 ITR 220 (Karnataka High Court) No doubt, the reliance placed by the assessee on the aforesaid decisions support the plea that the expenditure is revenue in nature, so however, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. (supra) had…

Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.) (171 ITR 224) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax