Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (3.15 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs M/S Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2008

M.P. Warehousing & Logistic ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 December, 2011

3.4 During hearing the learned CIT DR placed reliance on the decision from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi-line Pens Private Limited (supra) wherein on the issue of business expenditure on account of repairs and renovation of rented premises, the expenditure was incurred towards false ceiling, fixing tiles, replacing glasses, wooden partitions, replacement of electrical wiring, earthing, replacement of GI pipes, etc. so as to make the premises more conducive to business activity. It was held that such expenses clearly falls within the expression "repairs to the premises" and the same was held to be allowed as deduction u/s 30(a)(i) of the Act. If the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied to the facts of the present appeal, we find that there is a clear finding in the impugned order that the assessee made the apportionment of the expenses incurred for construction of new godown and repairing and maintenance of old 8 one, therefore, this judicial pronouncement rather helps the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 March, 2016

30. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that disallowance made has been deleted following the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Delhi Press Samachar 25 ITA No.709/Del./2012 ITA No.775/Del./2013 Patra (Private) Limited and CIT vs. Imperial Fastners (P) Ltd (supra). Following the above precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). No reasons have been stated by the ld. DR in the course of hearing to arrive at another conclusion. Thus in light of the above, ground raised by the revenue is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Aries Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 7 September, 2016

9. In the view taken by us that the expenditure of 75% of Rs. 31.32 lacs i.e. Rs. 23.49 lakhs is on capital account, the submission to claim deduction on account of Section 30 of the Act made by the Appellant need not be examined. Nor the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd.[2008] 306 ITR 182/175 Taxman 132 (Delhi) relied upon for interpretation of Section 30 of the Act need be examined. This for the reason that the Explanation to Section 30 of the Act itself provides that the amount paid on the cost of repairs would not include any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Although this Explanation to Section 30 of the Act was introduced in 2004 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, the Explanation itself clarifies that it has been introduced for removal of doubts. Therefore, it would be applicable even for the period prior 1st April, 2004 including the subject Assessment year. It is for the above reason the learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly did not even attempt to suggest that deduction under Section 30 of the Act would be available even in respect of capital expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 3(3)(3), Mumbai vs Thebroma Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai on 9 April, 2019

9. In the view taken by us that the expenditure of 75% of Rs. 31.32 lacs i.e. Rs. 23.49 lakhs is on capital account, the submission to claim deduction on account of Section 30 of the Act made by the Appellant need not be examined. Nor the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Hi Line Pens (P.) Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 182/175 Taxman 132 (Delhi) relied upon for interpretation of Section 30 of the Act need be examined. This for the reason that the Explanation to Section 30 of the Act itself provides that the amount paid on the cost of repairs would not include any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Although this Explanation to Section 30 of the Act was introduced in 2004 w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, the Explanation itself clarifies that it has been introduced for removal of doubts. Therefore, it would be applicable even for the period prior 1st April, 2004 including the subject Assessment year. It is for the above reason the learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly did not even attempt to suggest that deduction under Section 30 of the Act would be available even in respect of capital expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal India Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax

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 6 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 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lg Chemical India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs Assessee on 5 December, 2014

"6. The first issue, in our opinion, has been considered and decided against the revenue in a judgment delivered by us passed in ITA Nos.1110/2006 and 111/2006 titled CIT Vs. M/s. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. 6.1 As regards the second issue, we find that in CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens Pvt Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 0182, the court was called upon to interpret the expression "repairs of the premises". The court had thus to determine as to whether the expenses incurred on repairs were in the nature of revenue expenditure ITAs 1344/2009 and 1363/2009 Page 3 of 5 or, had brought into existence, an asset, of enduring nature. The court concluded that the expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure. A distinction was also made between the terms "repairs""and "current repairs". The court held that the term "repairs" was wider than the expression "current repairs" as used in Section 30(a)(ii).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... on 18 January, 2019

In CIT vs Hiline Pens Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 182, 189(Del), Delhi High Court have held that where assessee incurred expenses towards repairing of rented premises for carrying on its business activity without any intention to bring new capital asset into existence, such expenses fall within the purview of the expression "repairs to premises" u/s 30(a)(i) and hence admissible.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next