Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Amway India Enterprises on 4 November, 2011 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs M/S Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2008

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 1111/2006 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).
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 65 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs Escorts Finance Limited on 24 August, 2009

6.2 In CIT Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd [2006] 205 CTR (Delhi) 574, which is an earlier judgment of this court, the court was called upon to decide as to whether the expenses incurred on improvement of leasehold premises, were in the nature of revenue expenditure, as contended by the assessee. The court sustained the contention of the assessee and allowed the deduction claimed under Section 37(1) of the I. T. Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 68 - A K Sikri - Full Document

1. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Unichem Laboratories Ltd. (And Vice ... on 9 February, 1993

The court noticed the dicta of the judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs David Mills Ltd. (Income Tax Reference No. 17/1950 decided by Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar, J. on 10.10.1950) and Mevor Mills ltd. vs CIT (Income Tax Reference No. 36/1950 decided by the same Bench, on 30.03.1951) wherein, it has been observed that in ascertaining whether an expenditure incurred is made on revenue account or otherwise one would have to bear in mind the nature of the expenditure, that is, was it incurred for maintenance or preservation of an asset or was it expended otherwise. It thus concluded that if the expenditure was of the former kind it would be in the nature of a revenue expenditure.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1