Which cases are most cited on Section 80-O?

CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd. (346 ITR 138) — 93 citing judgments; CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn (157 ITR 86) — 42 citing judgments; Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (191 ITR 647) — 38 citing judgments; SSI Ltd. v. DCIT (85 TTJ 1049) — 30 citing judgments; Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (145 ITR 793) — 17 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80-O?

BharatTax indexes 55 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd. (346 ITR 138) is the decision most relied on for Section 80-O, cited in 93 judgments. Expenditure incurred on modifying an existing software system is revenue in nature and is allowable as a business expenditure. This is determined by applying a functional test to assess if the software creates an enduring benefit or forms part of the enduring profit-making apparatus.

The decision most relied on for Section 80-O is CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd. (346 ITR 138), cited in 93 of the 55 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80-O

CIT v. Raychem RPG Ltd.

346 ITR 138 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred on modifying an existing software system is revenue in nature and is allowable as a business expenditure. This is determined by applying a functional test to assess if the software creates an enduring benefit or forms part of the enduring profit-making apparatus.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn

157 ITR 86 · 1986 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A golf course is not considered plant and machinery for the purpose of depreciation and is instead classified as a building.

Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

191 ITR 647 · 1991 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Extinguishment of rights in a capital asset includes transfer and attracts capital gains computation provisions. Demolition and conversion of a building into scrap constitutes a form of transfer.

SSI Ltd. v. DCIT

85 TTJ 1049 · 2004 · ITAT

citing judgments

Expenses incurred on issuing Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) are allowable as a deduction under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

145 ITR 793 · 1984 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the issue of bonus shares is treated as revenue expenditure and is allowable as a deduction. However, expenditure related to increasing share capital is not allowable as revenue expenditure.

Ace Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT (Mad)

244 ITR 166 · High Court

citing judgments

Findings in earlier assessment years are not conclusive and facts can be reconsidered in later years, leading to different findings.

CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd.

341 ITR 199 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. DCIT

90 ITD 153 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd.

237 ITR 706 · High Court

citing judgments

Punj Sons P. Ltd. v. DCIT

74 TTJ 596 · 2002 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80-O

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The Jt CIT Sr-27

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3791/MUM/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The ACIT RG-4(3)(3)

In the result the, all the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2004[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant, Member Ita No.3790 /Mum/2004 (A.Y.1996-97)

Ramnath & Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2506/2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 80

Ramnath and Co vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-002506-002509 - 2020Supreme Court05 Jun 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 80

The Dy CIT Cir 4(1) vs. M/S. Dsp Memill Lynch Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed as being not pressed

ITA 2727/MUM/2004[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1995-1996

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2727/Mum/2004 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1995-96) Dcit-Circle 4(1) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited 6Th Floor, Room No.640 (Formerly Known As Dsp Financial Consultants Limited) Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai-400 020. Vs. One Bkc, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7806/Mum/2004 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1995-96) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Dcit-Circle 4(1) 6Th Floor, Room No.640 (Formerly Known As Dsp Financial Consultants Limited) Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai-400 020. Vs. One Bkc, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 2845/MUM/2002[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2845/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Jcit-Special Range-22 Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai बनाम/ One Bkc, G Block Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 05 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. DR

Section 80

JCIT (OSD), New Delhi vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1836/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate and Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

Vijay. V Meghani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5418/MUM/2011[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2018AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 80

B.L. Passi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (XI)

The appeal is dismissed with no

C.A. No.-003892-003892 - 2007Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd vs. DCIT, Co. Circle-2(1)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80H

You Broadband & Cable India Ltd ( Formerly Knwon As You Telecom India P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in A

ITA 8409/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 194JSection 40Section 80

ITO Ward 15(2) vs. Ranutrol Instrumentation Ltd

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 1727/DEL/2008[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member Assessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Smt. Shaveta Nakra Dutta, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv

Section 80

Vijay V. Megahani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 27(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5484/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri Vijay V. Meghani Acit, Circle - 27(2) Flat No. 1, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Atur Terraces; 19 Cuffe M.K. Road Parade, Mumbai 400005 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aafpm4172N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 800Section 88

M/S Continental Carriers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/415/2004HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80

M/S Continental Carrier vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/264/2002HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260ASection 80

M/S Continental Carrier vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 264 / 2002HC Delhi26 Apr 2016

Section 260ASection 80

M/S. Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6317/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 1995-96 M/S. Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 11Th Floor, International Trade Tower, Circle 16(1), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact0475H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Sampath, Adv. Department By: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 07:03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Both On Law & On Fact, The Appellant Company Is Entitled To Deduction Under Sec. 80-O Of The It Act. 2. It Is Contended That The Appellant Company Did Not Render Nor Liable To Render Any Services To Any Indian Concerns Like Ongc Etc. Since The Contract Between The Appellant Company & The Foreign Company Is An Independent Contract. 3. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Had Misdirected Himself While Giving Effect To The Order Of The Itat.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80O