“Section 10(2)(xv)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(2)(xv)113 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(2)(xv) is Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (27 ITR 34), cited in 174 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv)

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court

174

citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT

72 ITR 612 · 1969 · Supreme Court

140

citing judgments

The reasonableness of an expenditure for business purposes must be assessed from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and the primary motive to earn income directly is not a prerequisite for its admissibility as a deduction.

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT

41 ITR 350 · 1961 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalties paid for a breach of law or contravention of statutory provisions are not allowable deductions as business expenditure because they cannot be considered wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. This principle is now enshrined in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Champion Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 273 (Bom), CIT v. Bowrisankara Stemp Ferry Co.

165 ITR 63 · 1987 · High Court

citing judgments

The case is cited for the principle that when a payment is made for a non-compete agreement which is part of a larger business transfer, the characterisation of the payment depends on whether it is for the enduring benefit of the business or for the loss of potential profits.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Coal Shipment Ltd.

82 ITR 902 · 1971 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Payments for non-compete fees or restrictive covenants are revenue expenditure if they are for a limited or uncertain duration and do not confer an enduring advantage to the assessee. The classification as revenue or capital depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Alembic Chemical Works (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madras Auto Services (supra) and CIT vs. HMT Limited

203 ITR 820 · 1993 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the elimination of business competition, such as non-compete fees, is classified as either revenue or capital expenditure based on whether it creates an enduring benefit for the assessee's business.

Abdul Kayoom (K.T.M.T.M.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax

44 ITR 689 · 1962 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

To determine if an expenditure is capital or revenue, one must consider the nature of the business, the expenditure, the right acquired, and their inter-relation. The concept of 'enduring benefit' is descriptive and relative, not synonymous with perpetual.

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT

111 ITR 263 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A business loss is deductible if it has a direct and proximate nexus with business operations or is incidental to them, applying a commercial standard, even without an explicit statutory provision for its deduction.

Judgments citing Section 10(2)(xv)

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, on arrears of cess payable held that the interest payable did not fall within the scope of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian IT Act. In that actual situation the Supreme Court held that the interest payable under Section 3(3) of the Cess ... penalty paid for an infringement of law and was an allowable deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. At p. 434 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has made the following observation : In truth, the interest provided under Section 3(3) is in the nature of compensation

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40

paid upon the said loan was deductible as revenue expenditure. It was held by this Court that it was an expenditure deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was held that transaction of acquisition of the asset was closely related to the commencement ... other company was in the course of carrying on of the assessee's business, the interest paid thereon was deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. In this case too, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the acquisition of Nawrosjee Wadia Ginning & Pressing Company was necessary

Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result ground no 6 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.265/Rpr/2022 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. M/S.Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- Plot No.458/459, Of Income Tax, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Circle-1(1), Raipur. Chhattisgarh-493 221. [Pan: Aacca 0569 P] (अपीलार्थीर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.B.Doshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.Dr : सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 घोषणा की तारीखरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2023

For Respondent: Mr.Satya Prakash Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरणकरण न्यायपीठयपीठ रायपुरयपुर में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR श्री रवीश सूद , न्यायिक सदस्य

Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 250Section 36(2)

right in the view that we have taken that what is claimed as a trading loss is not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv), then the material date obviously is not the date when the embezzlement took place but the material date is when the loss is caused

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

paid upon the said loan was deductible as revenue expenditure. It was held by this Court that it was an expenditure deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act. It was held that transaction of acquisition of the asset was closely related to the commencement and carrying ... other company was in the course of carrying on of the assessee's business, the interest paid thereon was deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. In this case too, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the acquisition of Nawrosjee Wadia Ginning & Pressing Company was necessary

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

specific provision under section 10(2)(v) of the Act, then, benefit should be given to the assessee under the residuary clause i.e. section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. Moreover, Instruction no. 17/2008 dated 26.11.2008, relied upon by the CIT DR is also not applicable to the facts

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6707/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumaraddl. Cit, Vs. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, 1St Floor, Plot No. 8, Elegance Special Range-1, New Delhi Tower, Jasola, New Delhi -110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca5603Q Assessee By : Sh. Sudesh Garg, Adv Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Ms. Bhavya Garg, Ca Revenue By: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 32Section 37(1)

incurred for business purposes, in order to qualify for allowance under section 37(1) of the Act. The expression "Wholly & exclusively used in section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (Which corresponds to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) does not mean "necessary". Ordinarily ... Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). In order that an expenditure may be admissible as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv), it is not necessary that the primary motive in incurring it must be directly to earn income thereby (Sree Meenakshi Mills

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2728/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 37

observed that " it has to be observed here that the expression 'wholly and exclusively' used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act [section 37(1) of the present Act] does into mean 'necessarily'. Ordinarily, it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)

Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जाेधपुर न्यायपीठ] जाेधपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’ JODHPUR. Jh HkkLdju chvkj] ys

Thrivei Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Central Circle (I/C), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 674/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

business. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’20…………………… It has to be observed here that the expression "wholly and exclusively" used in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act does not mean "necessarily". Ordinarily it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course ... without any necessity and if it is incurred for promoting the business and to earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act even though there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. It is relevant to refer at this stage

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Wipro Ge Medical Systems Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &

Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Petronet Mhb Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S Well Wisher Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1912/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

revenue, that an expenditure incurred in connection with a criminal case cannot be considered as an expenditure coming within the scope of section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. He contended that an expenditure incurred in connection with a civil litigation can be given deduction to, if the conditions prescribed ... section 10(2)(xv) are satisfied, but no such deduction can be given if any expenditure is incurred in connection with a criminal case. We find no support for this contention from the language of section 10(2)(xv). That provision does not make any distinction between civil litigation

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade", can be adopted as the best interpretation of the crucial words of Section 10(2)(xv). The imprudence of the expenditure and its depressing effect on the taxable profits would not deflect the applicability of the section. The acid test

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi

Section 37(1)

M/S Xindia Steels Limited, Koppal vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143

ACIT -2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Jayant Dattatray Mhaiskar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 510/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No