← All Phrases

“enduring benefit”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 371,056 judgments

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

Leading authorities on enduring benefit

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.

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.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

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.

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.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

Judgments citing enduring benefit

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

business operation of the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee also explained that production of advertisement film did not result in any enduring benefit in the highly competitive market. The assessee explained that advertisement film was prerequisite for its telecasting. Since, telecasting or releasing in media was considered ... assessee contention that the expenditure was incurred for advertisement of products being manufactured/marketed by it in the ongoing business and no there is enduring benefit. The AO relied on the decision of CIT vs. Patel International Film Ltd 102 ITR 219 which was confirmed by the CIT(A). This issue

DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3728/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

side of the ld. AO that the entry tax so paid in any way added to the value of the asset to give an enduring benefit to the assessee or to the asset itself. Thus, there is no error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting

Ufo Moviez India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1942/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 15JSection 36(1)(va)

side of the ld. AO that the entry tax so paid in any way added to the value of the asset to give an enduring benefit to the assessee or to the asset itself. Thus, there is no error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

where the Hon’ble Special Bench has described the concept of benefit of enduring nature as under:- “"Whether expenditure on computer software gives on enduring benefit to an assessee: For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit, to an assessee, the duration of time

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

where the Hon’ble Special Bench has described the concept of benefit of enduring nature as under:- “"Whether expenditure on computer software gives on enduring benefit to an assessee: For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit, to an assessee, the duration of time

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

where the Hon’ble Special Bench has described the concept of benefit of enduring nature as under:- “"Whether expenditure on computer software gives on enduring benefit to an assessee: For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit, to an assessee, the duration of time

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

where the Hon’ble Special Bench has described the concept of benefit of enduring nature as under:- “"Whether expenditure on computer software gives on enduring benefit to an assessee: For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit, to an assessee, the duration of time

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

where the Hon’ble Special Bench has described the concept of benefit of enduring nature as under:- “"Whether expenditure on computer software gives on enduring benefit to an assessee: For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit, to an assessee, the duration of time

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1758/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

corporate-sponsor in the form of research report; the corporate-sponsor is free to apply the aforesaid technology & knowledge and derive an enduring benefit. Thus, the Appellant is making available technical designs and knowhow to the corporate- sponsor. Further, the fact that corporate-sponsor also gets intellectual property rights ... corporate and the technology and knowledge from the research is provided to the corporate who will apply the same and derive an enduring benefit from the 22 same. In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the considered view that the receipts earned by the assessee through

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5550/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

year ending 31.03.2007 for the ‘Brand Equity’ and held that the impugned expenditure was incurred in building ‘Blue Star’ brand which are of enduring benefit to the assessee company and the same is to be treated as capital expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the Brand Building ... case of Empire Juice Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that merely seeing the test of enduring benefit is not a conclusive proof to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature rather the addition of enduring nature

Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4792/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 115Section 145ASection 250Section 40Section 43B

year ending 31.03.2007 for the ‘Brand Equity’ and held that the impugned expenditure was incurred in building ‘Blue Star’ brand which are of enduring benefit to the assessee company and the same is to be treated as capital expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the Brand Building ... case of Empire Juice Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that merely seeing the test of enduring benefit is not a conclusive proof to determine whether an expenditure is capital or revenue in nature rather the addition of enduring nature

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AY 2009-10 to 2010-

ITA 5677/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4317/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4338/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Dcit (Ltu) (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Bharat Vs. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Sugar & Industries Ltd.) Vihar, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4447/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80I

computation of income for the reason that by incurring the said expenditure the company has not created any new asset nor received any new enduring benefit. It was also contended that the company does not have any ownership on the said assets and the expenditure was pre forced incurred ... assessed being the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, that did not mean that the assessed had acquired any capital asset or an enduring benefit or advantage and the object of making the payment was purely one of commercial expediency. On this basis, it was held that the payment made

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AY 2009-10 to 2010-

ITA 5019/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4317/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4338/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Dcit (Ltu) (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Bharat Vs. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Sugar & Industries Ltd.) Vihar, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4447/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80I

computation of income for the reason that by incurring the said expenditure the company has not created any new asset nor received any new enduring benefit. It was also contended that the company does not have any ownership on the said assets and the expenditure was pre forced incurred ... assessed being the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, that did not mean that the assessed had acquired any capital asset or an enduring benefit or advantage and the object of making the payment was purely one of commercial expediency. On this basis, it was held that the payment made

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AY 2009-10 to 2010-

ITA 4572/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4317/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4338/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Dcit (Ltu) (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Bharat Vs. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Sugar & Industries Ltd.) Vihar, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4447/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80I

computation of income for the reason that by incurring the said expenditure the company has not created any new asset nor received any new enduring benefit. It was also contended that the company does not have any ownership on the said assets and the expenditure was pre forced incurred ... assessed being the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, that did not mean that the assessed had acquired any capital asset or an enduring benefit or advantage and the object of making the payment was purely one of commercial expediency. On this basis, it was held that the payment made

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for AY 2009-10 to 2010-

ITA 4447/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4317/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4338/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Dcit (Ltu) (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Bharat Vs. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Sugar & Industries Ltd.) Vihar, 11Th & 12Th Floors, Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4447/Del/2014 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Dcit (Ltu) Dalmia Cement (Bharat)Ltd. Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Vs. (Now Known As M/S Dalmia Sector-Iii, New Delhi. Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floors, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacd2281K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80I

computation of income for the reason that by incurring the said expenditure the company has not created any new asset nor received any new enduring benefit. It was also contended that the company does not have any ownership on the said assets and the expenditure was pre forced incurred ... assessed being the property of the Gujarat Electricity Board, that did not mean that the assessed had acquired any capital asset or an enduring benefit or advantage and the object of making the payment was purely one of commercial expediency. On this basis, it was held that the payment made