“capital expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 373,515 judgments

The decision most relied on for capital expenditure is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on capital expenditure

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT

124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court

622

citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT

227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court

621

citing judgments

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.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court

568

citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT

438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court

508

citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court

398

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT

372 ITR 605 · 2015 · Supreme Court

343

citing judgments

An expenditure does not automatically become capital in nature merely because it results in some enduring benefit for the assessee; it can be treated as revenue expenditure if incurred for genuine business purposes.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT

35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT

322

citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT

177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court

275

citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

Judgments citing capital expenditure

Inter Continental Hotels Group (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 144C(3)

marketing), and other business support functions ( finance, human resources , IT etc .). IHG India works closely with hotel owners to develop and monitor business plans, capital expenditure budgets , review and operational audits o f the hotels etc. Guidance are provided to the General Managers ("GM") o f the hotels in analyzing

Universal Energies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5298/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 201Section 30Section 37(1)Section 40

provides that any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, New Delhi

ITA 5737/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 50C

loan refund/ repayment may not be disallowed as the same amounts to double deduction in view of the fact that the assessee has claimed capital expenditure as well as revenue expenditure as application. The assessee vide reply dated 25.03.2014 has contended that - "The Assessee society has taken loan ... legal provisions or not - (i) While examining the claims of repayment of loans, it is important to verify whether the assessee has claimed capital expenditure made out of such loans as application in its return of income without showing the loan as receipt / income or not. If the assessee

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al

ITA 990/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maharashtra State Electricity Income-Tax Officer, Ward Transmission Company Ltd., 14(2)(3), Plot No. C-19 E Block, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Prakashganga, Bandra-Kurla Karve Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaecm 2936 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harishankar Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harishankar Lal, DR

Section 148

claimed as a revenue expenditure when they were in the claimed as a revenue expenditure when they were in the nature of a capital expenditure. nature of a capital expenditure. 12. Thereafter, with reference to these very issues, 12. Thereafter, with reference to these very issues, 12. Thereafter, with reference ... towards filing of patent applications applications applications should should should have have have been been been treated treated treated as as as capital capital capital expenditure. Since it was treated as a revenue expenditure, expenditure. Since it was treated as a revenue expenditure, expenditure. Since it was treated

Grameen Impact Investment India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National -E Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Grameen Impact Investments India National-E-Assessment Pvt. Ltd., Centre, 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. New Delhi-110 001. Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ars : Revenue By Mr. Satyapal Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grameen Impact Investments India Dy. Cit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, Aayakar 306, 3Rd Floor, A Wing, Devroop Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, 36, Turner Road, Bandra Mumbai-400050. West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaacr 9005 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Shivaram & Mr. Shashi

Section 56

vocations;10(2)(×v): Any expenditure (not being in the vocations;10(2)(×v): Any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid

Tata Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2334/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Tata Digital Private Limited, Central Processing Centre/The Army & Navy Building 148, M G Deputy Commissioner Of Income Road, Opposite Kala Ghoda Fort Vs. Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai. Mumbai City-400 001 Pan No. Aahct 2205 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, AR

Section 143(1)Section 71

time limit of 8 years is not applicable in in the the case case of of unabsorbed unabsorbed depreciation depreciat ion allowance, allowance, unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning ... unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is filed within the time limit

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao

Section 14A

fact that FCCB were issued for acquiring the appreciating the fact that FCCB were issued for acquiring the overseas business which is a capital expenditure and the overseas business which is a capital expenditure and the overseas business which is a capital expenditure and the premium on FCCB has been ... consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act towards capital expenditure on research and of the Act towards capital expenditure on research and of the Act towards capital expenditure on research and development

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

deduction for an amount of Rs.1274.33 lakhs comprising of sum of Rs.1197.94 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure and a sum of Rs.76.39 lakhs as capital expenditure u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment after making two disallowances of Rs.7,98,37,813/- u/s.36

Solvay Specialities India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ld

ITA 604/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Solvay Specialties India Pvt Ltd Dcit 16(2) Equinox Business Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower-4, 9Th Floor, Unit No. Vs. Mumbai-400 020 903, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aajcs0613F Assessee By : Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Richa Gulati – Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Richa Gulati – Sr AR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 37Section 92C

revenue expenditure. 06. TheLd. AO disallowed the same for the reason that assessee did not substantiate the above claim and the expenditure were capital expenditure. 07. The ld. DRP categorically held that on aborting the project neither an asset come into existence nor an enduring benefit was received hence, this ... benefit accrued to the assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that such expenses would classify only as revenue expenditure. It is not at all a capital expenditure. This fact has also been recorded by the ld. DRP. In view of this, we do not find any reason to state that this

Cipla Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2732/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

deduction to the amount quantified by the DSIR. 35. The assessee has filed revised application to correct the mistake in the quantification of the capital expenditure on building, amounting to Rs.1.54 lacs and other assets of Rs.2504.12 lacs to be revised to Rs.2575.08 lacs. 36. The assessee preferred an appeal

DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Cipla Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2639/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Tribunal in case of Biocon Limited has held that the discount on shares issued to employees can never to categorized as a capital expenditure. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO erred in disregarding the decision of the Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures ... considering the submissions of the assessee held that ESOP expenses even if it is treated as expenditure, the same is in the nature of capital expenditure because security premium is a capital item and hence, cannot be allowed u/s.37 of the Act. Further, he noted that the liability arises

ACIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Wyeth Lederle Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2912/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 7(3) Vs. M/S Wyeth Ltd Room No. 615, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Mk Road, Worli Level 6& 7 Plating Mumbai – 400 020. Plot No. C-59, G Block Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400098 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc1451A Appellant .. Respondent

For Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh Anand.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 801Section 80H

scheme approved by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, was neither for acquiring any asset nor was it in the nature of capital expenditure rather it was incurred to reduce the cost to ensure conduct of the business in an efficient and profitable manner and the Respondent did not acquire ... allowing an adhoc amount of Rs. 1,01,13,318/- being 20% of expenditure of Rs. 5,05, 66, 589/- incurred on advertisement as capital expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

revenue expenditure because it was a loan raised for acquiring a capital asset and, therefore, the interest incurred cannot form part of capital expenditure. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income- tax cancelled the assessment order disallowing the interest of Rs. 14.09 lakhs. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred Appeal to the Tribunal ... which, following its earlier decision, held that the interest paid by the assessee cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the Assessment Order dated 29th March, 1990. Being aggrieved, the department has come by way of Appeal to this Court under section 260A of the Income

M/S. Firmenich Aromatics Production India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 94C

6116/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 that expenses of INR 3,48,51,510/- pertain to cost of Software Development/acquisition which was treated as capital expenditure while computing taxable income whereas the balance amount of INR 5,52,26,376/- was in the nature of recurring, maintenance and usages charges which ... Officer, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Appellant, disallowed deduction for INR 5,52,26,376/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on same at the rate of 30%. Thus, making addition of balance amount of INR 3,86,58,463/-. 7. Being

A.R.A.P Enterprises P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT(OSD), Ncr-1, Chennai

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

ITA 535/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.A.R.A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.35-37, Old No.17-18, Income Tax (Osd), Gandhi Irwin Road, Ncr-1, Chennai. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aagca 9262 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.R.Venkatraman, Irs & Mr.R.Viswanathan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 37(1)

totaling to Rs.8,20,602/- debited under the head ‘rates & taxes’ on the ground that they are in the nature of capital expenditure. It was the arguments of the assessee that the amounts debited under the head ‘rates & taxes’ are recurring expenses which are Revenue in nature. 7.1 We have

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5710/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Office No. Bw-3010 Circle 5(3), Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics5514N Assessee By : Shri Fenil Bhatt & Shri Sankit Chordia, Ars’ Revenue By : Shri Samuel Pitta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR

Section 92Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

92CA (3) of the Act was passed on 30th September, 2013. 05. The learned Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has given advance against capital expenditure of ₹3,16,96,827/-, however, assessee did not capitalized any expenditure to the cost of capital asset. Assessee was issued show cause notice

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

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

ITA 2186/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 194H

under:- Actual payments made – 30% of Rs 35,82,679 - 10,74,804 Payments made to Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd Treated as capital expenditure by ld. DRP but eligible For depreciation - 69,69,997 Provision made – 30% of Rs 1,01,92,977 - 30,57,893 ------------------ 7 ITA No.2186-Mum-2021 ... sales promotion 1,11,02,694 ----------------- However, the ld. AO had granted depreciation @ 60% on Rs 69,69,997/- as it was treated as capital expenditure. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. AR before us drew our attention to the provisions of section 194H

Group M Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhgroup M Media India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-1(3)(1), 7Th & 8Th Floor, A Wing, Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, The Orb, Jw Marriott Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar, Andheri (W), Churchage, Mumbai Mumbai – 400099 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Ashok Kumar Kardam

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

return of income. 6. erred in treating the software expenditure of Rs 3,74,12,192 incurred by the Appellant as capital expenditure under Section 37 of the Act and thereby directing the learned Assessing officer to disallow the same. 7. erred in contending that learned Assessing Officer

M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3 (2), Mumbai

ITA 349/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

opposite stand by contending that the advance given was capital in nature. We are alive to the situation where a transaction may result in capital expenditure in the hands of one taxpayer and revenue receipt in the hands of another. For example in case purchase of machinery, the price ... machinery is capital expenditure in the hands of the purchaser and revenue receipt in the hands of the machine manufacturer/supplier. However, this is not the situation in the case before us. The Assessee had entered into Power Purchase Agreement, dated 23.10.1998 and also Deed of Settlement, dated 27.12.2011, with