Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax - I vs M/S.Sakthi Sugars Ltd on 10 August, 2010

India Nippon Electricals Ltd., Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 June, 2012

7. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and the orders of lower authorities as well as case law relied on by the assessee's counsel. It appears that the assessee furnished the details of 5 I.T.A. No.2022 No.2022/M/ 2022/M/11 /M/11 expenses included in pre-operative expenses of Rewara unit before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with its submission on 07.06.2011, which was extracted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its order. It appears that these details were not furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. We see that all these expenses are in the nature of revenue expenses. No doubt that the expenses incurred for expansion of setting up new unit, which is in the same line of business are allowable as revenue expenses, in view of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. [339 ITR 400] and various other judicial pronouncements. However, since the assessee has not filed these details before the Assessing Officer, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with limited purpose of verification of these expenses. The Assessing Officer has to verify whether these expenses related to the plant and machinery as claimed by the assessee and pertain to expansion of the unit at Rewara, Haryana and if this expenditure is pertaining to that unit, the pre-operative expenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee on 19 February, 2016

By respectfully following the judgments of Madras High Court in Rane (Madras) Ltd. (supra) and in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (supra), the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the expansion of the units at Sriperumbudur and Hyderabad as revenue expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Emdee Apparels , Bangalore vs Assessee on 22 August, 2012

As regards the first question, we find that the assessee is already in the business of retail trading of Reebok footwear and shoes. What the assessee is doing in the relevant assessment year is opening a new outlet in two different locations. In these two locations also the assessee would be carrying on the business of retail trading in Reebok shoes and footwear only. As the goods in which the assessee is trading are one and the same, merely by opening new showrooms it cannot be said that the assessee is starting a new ITA Nos.576 & 577/Bang/2011 Page 9 of 12 business. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (supra) was considering the case of a sugar factory where it set up two sugar units and the expenditure incurred for the purposes of setting up these new units was held to be revenue expenditure. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we hold that by setting up new showrooms, the assessee is only expanding its business and is not setting up new business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs The Dcit, Cochin on 24 July, 2017

"10. A harmonious reading of the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, namely, Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. (supra) on the one hand and Modi Industries (supra) on the other, would clearly demonstrate that one has to keep in mind the essential purpose for which such an expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is incurred for starting new business which was not carried out by the assessee earlier, then such expenditure is held to be of capital nature. In that event it would be irrelevant as to whether project really materialised or not. However, if the expenditure incurred is in respect of the same business 'which is already carried on by the assessee, even if it is for the expansion of the business, namely, to start new unit which is same as earlier business and there is unity of control and a common fund, then such an expense is to be treated as business expenditure "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 20 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

M/S.Chemplast Sanmar vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 7 August, 2018

Reliance is again placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. [reported in (2011) 339 ITR 0400] to point out the decisions, which have been laid down for identifying an expenditure and to examine as to whether it is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. Referring to Section 70 of the Act, it is submitted that the said provision deals with set off of loss from one source against income from another source under the same head and therefore, what is important is the source and nothing else.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.J.K.Fenner (India) Limited on 11 December, 2018

5. In so far as the first substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is concerned, it pertains to the expenditure incurred by the assessee for establishing their unit at Sriperumbudur and whether the same to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure and the assessment is for the assessment year 2008-09. We have perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 23 of the common impugned order and we find that the Tribunal rightly followed the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rane (Madras) Limited [reported in (2007) 293 ITR 459] and the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sakthi Sugars Limited [reported in (2011) 339 ITR 400]. By applying the said decisions, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as a revenue expenditure. Accordingly, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 the finding rendered by the Tribunal is confirmed and substantial question of law No.1 raised by the Revenue is answered against the Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1   2 Next