“capital expenditure”

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

directors are based on scant material, The same applies to the finding of the learned CIT that royalty paid by the assessee represented capital expenditure and should not have been allowed. The learned CIT has not based these observations on any proper examination of the facts of the case ... perfunctory manner. We do not see any basis for the observation of the learned CIT that royalty payments of the assessee were disallowable as capital expenditure. That being so the impugned order under section 263 itself has been made on subjective opinion without indepth examination of facts of the case

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

directors are based on scant material, The same applies to the finding of the learned CIT that royalty paid by the assessee represented capital expenditure and should not have been allowed. The learned CIT has not based these observations on any proper examination of the facts of the case ... perfunctory manner. We do not see any basis for the observation of the learned CIT that royalty payments of the assessee were disallowable as capital expenditure. That being so the impugned order under section 263 itself has been made on subjective opinion without indepth examination of facts of the case

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

assessée had utilized the loans also for purchase of properties/ assets, accordingly there exist debate as to whether the interest is revenue or capital expenditure. The assessee, to avoid controversies in revised statement of income, has capitalized the interest in proportionate manner of Rs.7 ell 335k to the extent

Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

professional fees for conducting business modal, fees for reviewing a joint profit agreement of companies etc. can be brought to the category of capital expenditure. In the light of the nature of expenditure, finding of the ld. CIT(A) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Jt CIT(OSD) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

professional fees for conducting business modal, fees for reviewing a joint profit agreement of companies etc. can be brought to the category of capital expenditure. In the light of the nature of expenditure, finding of the ld. CIT(A) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Majestic Infracon P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

Assessing officer relating to legal and professional expenses and other expenses aggregating to Rs.19,85,60,980/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and personal expenditure and expenditure not pertaining to the business of the appellant. M/s. Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S Majestic Infracon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

Assessing officer relating to legal and professional expenses and other expenses aggregating to Rs.19,85,60,980/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and personal expenditure and expenditure not pertaining to the business of the appellant. M/s. Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ACIT (It)-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viacom 18 Media P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Income Tax Tribunal {'Tribunal' for short) we notice that the revenue's main thrust before the Tribunal was that the charges paid were capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. However, in this context, the Tribunal did observe fleetingly on the question of charges being royalty payments. We have therefore heard