“revenue expenditure”

CIT vs. M/S Triveni Oil Field Services Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

plant and machinery in his own premises. No part of such expenditure should be debited to profit and loss account and allowed as a revenue expenditure. 2014:DHC:4821-DB ITA No.142/2002 Page 4 of 15 5. Aggrieved, the respondent assessee preferred an appeal and the Commissioner of Income ... subsequent year. CIT(A) allowed the interest expenditure of 1,66,94,413/- and financial charges of Rs. 26,13,851/- as revenue expenditure as they had been incurred for acquisition of the rigs but the other expenses i.e. on consumption of stores and spares, sub-contract charges, salaries, travelling

CIT vs. Uniword Telecom Ltd

thereof, the AO is directed to segregate the purchases from the aforesaid five parties made in this year in terms of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. 10% of the revenue expenditure will be disallowed on account of non-verifiability of the purchase price and similarly 10% of the expenditure

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

principal and core issue raised ur die present appeals is similar re. whether hcence fee payable is capital oj' revenue expenditure. However, there is one basic diJference between appeals listed at SI. Nos. 1 to 9 in paragraph 1 above, and the appeal in the case of Hutchison Essar ... appeals reads "1. Did the Tribunal tail into error in holding that the variable licence fee paid by the assessees was properly deductible as revenue expenditure? 4. As is apparent from the substantial question of law quoted above, the issue raised is whether the variable licence lee paid

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

principal and core issue raised ur die present appeals is similar re. whether hcence fee payable is capital oj' revenue expenditure. However, there is one basic diJference between appeals listed at SI. Nos. 1 to 9 in paragraph 1 above, and the appeal in the case of Hutchison Essar ... appeals reads "1. Did the Tribunal tail into error in holding that the variable licence fee paid by the assessees was properly deductible as revenue expenditure? 4. As is apparent from the substantial question of law quoted above, the issue raised is whether the variable licence lee paid

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

principal and core issue raised in the present appeals is similar i.e. whether licence fee payable is capital or revenue expenditure. However, there is one basic difference between appeals listed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 in paragraph 1 above, and the appeal in the case of Hutchison Essar ... appeals reads:- ―1. Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the variable licence fee paid by the assessees was properly deductible as revenue expenditure? 4. As is apparent from the substantial question of law quoted above, the issue raised is whether the variable licence fee paid

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

principal and core issue raised ur die present appeals is similar re. whether hcence fee payable is capital oj' revenue expenditure. However, there is one basic diJference between appeals listed at SI. Nos. 1 to 9 in paragraph 1 above, and the appeal in the case of Hutchison Essar ... appeals reads "1. Did the Tribunal tail into error in holding that the variable licence fee paid by the assessees was properly deductible as revenue expenditure? 4. As is apparent from the substantial question of law quoted above, the issue raised is whether the variable licence lee paid

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative ofthe fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There ... Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative ofthe fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There ... Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There ... Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There ... Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi V vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

revenue or capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There ... Therefore, one has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate

Gail India Ltd

Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) whether the premium/lumpsum advance lease rentals paid in consideration for the grant of lease of land is deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.?” 2. At the outset it was urged on behalf of the assessee that the only ... nature of advantage in a commercial sense and so understood if the expenditure fall in the capital field would it not qualify as revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also

Gail India Ltd

Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) whether the premium/lumpsum advance lease rentals paid in consideration for the grant of lease of land is deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.?” 2. At the outset it was urged on behalf of the assessee that the only ... nature of advantage in a commercial sense and so understood if the expenditure fall in the capital field would it not qualify as revenue expenditure. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Madras Auto Services (1998) 233 ITR 468. He also

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eds Electronic Data Systems (India ) Pvt Ltd

spent `2,76,87,887/- towards expenditure for lease hold premises. A sum of `2,05,08,030 was claimed as revenue expenditure and the balance was treated as capital expenditure on which depreciation was claimed. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure to the extent ... Auto Services (P) Ltd. (supra), it was held that the expenditure incurred on construction of a leased premises by the assessee was deductible as revenue expenditure. This decision may apparently seem to be in contradiction with the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvana Spinning Mills

CIT vs. Hindustan Times Ltd

Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent it covers the first two questions;

100/2011 Page 4 ITR (Del) has held that an expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure cannot be treated as revenue expenditure only because the purpose for which the expenses was incurred could not be fulfilled. It was so held by the Delhi High Court that where the issue related ... start of the new business activity, did not make the proposed joint venture business an “existing business” for the expenditure to qualify as revenue expenditure. For these reasons, the rulings relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable. The same reasoning would apply for feasibility study report fee. The decision

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Telecom Finance (India) Ltd

into error in allowing deduction to the extent of Rs.26,21,049/- claimed by the assessee towards renovation of the property and treating as revenue expenditure in the facts and circumstances of this case? b. Whether the Tribunal was correct in permitting depreciation at 100% on Rs.11,98,600/- capitalized ... which, ` 11,98,600/- was capitalized; it claimed depreciation @ 100% thereon. The remaining amount of ` 29,10,985/- was treated as deferred revenue expenditure and had been amortized over the five years in the books of accounts. However, in return of income, the assessee claimed entire amount

CIT vs. Sony India Pvt Ltd

borrowed for payment of retrenchment compensation on closure of one of the four textile manufacturing units, amongst other businesses, of the assessee-company was revenue expenditure. It also held that closure of one unit did not amount to closure of business as it was not a separate and distinct business

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

have any enduring benefit by obtaining capital assets of the lessor against payment of monthly lease rent, the expenditure incurred by it was a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal however held that the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act had rightly been invoked, as there was a direct relationship ... Rs.6,75,000/- per month paid by the assessee to M/s Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust in terms of agreement dated 18 January, 1992 was revenue expenditure?” (ITA 247/2002) 4. For the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.5.2004 followed its earlier

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

have any enduring benefit by obtaining capital assets of the lessor against payment of monthly lease rent, the expenditure incurred by it was a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal however held that the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act had rightly been invoked, as there was a direct relationship ... Rs.6,75,000/- per month paid by the assessee to M/s Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust in terms of agreement dated 18 January, 1992 was revenue expenditure?” (ITA 247/2002) 4. For the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.5.2004 followed its earlier

CIT vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

have any enduring benefit by obtaining capital assets of the lessor against payment of monthly lease rent, the expenditure incurred by it was a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal however held that the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act had rightly been invoked, as there was a direct relationship ... Rs.6,75,000/- per month paid by the assessee to M/s Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust in terms of agreement dated 18 January, 1992 was revenue expenditure?” (ITA 247/2002) 4. For the Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 the Tribunal vide its order dated 26.5.2004 followed its earlier