Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs M/S Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2008

Comfy Stores,, Kanpur vs Assessee on 16 July, 2012

In the case of CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that expenditure incurred by the assessee towards renovation of premises taken on lease so as to make it more conducive to business activities, clearly fall within the expression 'repairs to the premises as appearing in section 30 (a)(i) of the Act and therefore the cost of repairs is allowable as deduction under section 30(a)(i) of the Act. In that case, the expenditures were incurred in false ceiling, fixing tiles, replacing glasses, wooden partitions, replacement of :-4-:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cit vs Eds Electronic Data Systems (India) ... on 4 October, 2012

7. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decisions reported as CIT v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd, (2008) 306 ITR 182 and CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd., (2007) 292 ITR 266 and contended that the expenditure incurred for the improvement of lease hold premises as in the present case was deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act; it was also submitted that if the Revenue's request for remitting the matter for examination of the entire expenditure, including what was allowed by the AO himself, were to be acceded to the assessee would be worse off having regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer himself has allowed its claim and permitted deduction of `70 odd lakhs. It is, therefore, submitted that having regard to the limited nature of the remand this Court should not interfere with the findings of the lower authorities as the same would lead to prejudice. The counsel also contended that the findings of the fact were concurrent and no substantial question of law arises.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Novaritis Enterprises Ltd., Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 11 April, 2012

18. During the course of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that the said expenditure aggregating to Rs.33,05,000 disallowed by ld CIT(A) is on account of repairs of the buildings and no new asset has been created. Hence, it is revenue in nature. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ayesha Hospitals P. Ltd, 292 ITR 266(Mad) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd., 306 ITR 182(Del).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amartex Industries Pvt. Ltd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 May, 2012

75. The perusal of the above said explanation fairly establishes that the assessee had spent sum of Rs.1.07 crores on the construction of building on land taken on lease from its Managing Director. The said expenditure on the construction of the building cannot be held to be revenue expenditure in the case of the assessee. We are in conformity with the orders of the authorities below that the said expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital expenditure and the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation on the said assets. Reliance placed b y the assessee on the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi vs Telecom Finance (India) Ltd. on 12 September, 2012

12. Furthermore, contended counsel for the assessee, that the expenditure on renovation was revenue in nature, and thus ought to have been allowed as a deduction in terms of Section 30(a) (i). Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Escorts Finance Ltd [2006] 205 CTR (Del) 574, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 182 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Amway India Enterprises 4th November 2011 in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009. Alternatively, it was argued that the expenditure would fall under ambit of section 37(1) of the Act, and thus, would be deductible.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi vs Telecom Finance (India) Ltd. on 12 September, 2012

12. Furthermore, contended counsel for the assessee, that the expenditure on renovation was revenue in nature, and thus ought to have been allowed as a deduction in terms of Section 30(a) (i). Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Escorts Finance Ltd [2006] 205 CTR (Del) 574, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 182 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Amway India Enterprises 4th November 2011 in ITA Nos. 1344/2009 and 1363/2009. Alternatively, it was argued that the expenditure would fall under ambit of section 37(1) of the Act, and thus, would be deductible.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Jindal (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 April, 2012

We further find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since in this case rolls used in iron and steel industries are the parts of the machinery and are replaced very frequently during the year the expenses incurred on replacement of the rolls is allowable as current repairs, therefore, cannot be disallowed simply because assessee was entitled to get 80% depreciation on this item u/s. 32 of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 April, 2012

03. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO. Following this decision, the addition made by the AO has been deleted. 4.1 Before us, the Ld. CIT(DR) relied on the findings given by the AO. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel submitted that not only the Tribunal has decided the matter in favour of the assessee in asstt. Year 2001-02 to 2003-04, and 2005-06 to 2006-07, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also decided the matter in favour of the assessee in asstt. Year 2001-02 and 2002-03 in ITA Nos 1344-1363/2009 dated 4.11.2011, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book on pages 1 to 5. The orders of the Tribunal for the aforesaid years have been placed in the paper book on page Nos. 16 to 49. The Hon'ble Court considered the decision in the case of CIT vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. (2008), 306 ITR 182, CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (Delhi) 574, CIT vs. David Mills Ltd. In IT reference No. 17/1950 decided by Bombay High Court on 10.10.1950, Mevor Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT and Income tax reference No. 36/1950 decided by Mumbai High 4 ITA No. 594/Del/12 Asstt. year 2007-08 Court. Having regard to principals laid down in these judgments, it has been held that the expenditure incurred on the lease premises for setting up a chain of distribution across the country is revenue in nature. 4.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. Ld. CIT(DR) has not able to point out in distinguishing feature in this year vis a vis the earlier years for which decisions have been rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Tribunal. In absence thereof, it is held that the facts are in pari materia. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court it is held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly held the expenditure to the revenue in nature. Thus, this ground is also dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1