Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.39 seconds)
Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, Special Range- 04, New Delhi on 4 June, 2024 cites

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 October, 2007

"Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Business expansion expenses) - Assessee was engaged in manufacturing of nylon tyre cord fabrics, packaging film, fluorochemicals, chloromethane and refrigerant gases - During current year, assessee expanded its business and claimed expenses as pre-capitalisation costs - Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure - Commissioner(Appeals) also confirmed findings of Assessing Officer - Tribunal after considering existing business and expansion, held that there was an element of interlacing before new venture and existing venture, and consequently, expenses had to be treated as revenue expenditure - Whether in view of judgment in Jay Engg. Works Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 405/[2008] 166 Taxman 115 (Delhi), pre-capitalisation expenses would be treated as revenue expenditure - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee] 7.2 Examining the present case on the touchstone of above case laws, we find that assessee deserves to succeed. Hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide this issue in favour of the assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 45 - M B Lokur - Full Document

The Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special ... on 5 July, 2003

4.2 Further, the AO commented in the assessment order that the assessee has itself been showing expenditure incurred on these projects as "Capital Work in Progress' till 31.03.2013. During the F.Y. 2013-14, the assessee decided not to proceed with these projects and accordingly the land cost has been transferred to the fixed assets schedule. The ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, as per the AO, is clearly applicable in this case, because the expenditure was incurred with a view to bring new assets into existence and the assessee itself was showing the cost incurred till 31.03.2013 as capital works in progress. AO held that merely because in the F.Y. 2013-14 the assessee company decided not to proceed with the projects, the nature of the expenditure would not change from capital to revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd vs C.I.T,New Delhi on 5 January, 2011

The AO further held that the facts of the present case are different than the case law relied upon by the assessee that is M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 333 ITR 18. In that case, the project could not see the light of the day since the assessee company could not procure the allotment of the requisite land from the government. However, in the present case, the assessee could procure the land for all the projects as per the details of "project work in the progress'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 109 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 Next