Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.44 seconds)Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New ... on 20 August, 2020
5-star Hotel in the name and style 'The Grand, New Delhi at Vasant Kunj'. As
part of its hotel business, the assessee paid a deposit of Rs. 4.00 crores for 20-
year right to renovate and use the 2200 sq. ft. property at 4 Regal Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi, as a restaurant to M/s Gomti Foods Spices Ltd.
vide an agreement dated 15.11.2007 (placed at page no. 34-38 of the paper book).
In this regard, the assessee submits that however, due to a massive fire at its
premises i.e. at Grand Hotel in the year 2008, the assessee was unable to fulfil
the conditions stipulated in the said agreement with M/s Gomti Food Spices Ltd.
and repeatedly requested M/s Gomti Food Spices Ltd for the refund of Rs. 4
crores. In this regard, the assessee has submitted necessary documents in its
support placed at page no. 48-55 of the paper book to show that the assessee made
all efforts to get the securities deposits refunded but was able to receive a refund
of Rs. 72.50 lakhs. Further, it is submitted that realizing the bleak chances of
recovery, the management vide resolution dated 24.04.2014 decided to write of
the balance of Rs. 3.27 crores in its books of accounts. On similar facts, the Co-
ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of DCIT vs. Ebony Retail Holding
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) allowed a similar claim of the assessee. The relevant extract of
the said order is reproduced as under:
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mercantile Bank Ltd., Bombay vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax Bombay ... on 1 May, 2006
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Bombay
[2009] 180 Taxman 545 (Bombay), High Court
Further, reliance is also placed on the judgment of Pragati Construction Co. v. Dy.
Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 11 taxmann.com 203 (Delhi High Court)
In this case, the assessee was carrying on business of construction, purchase and
sale of flats. It's sister concern, PCL made a bid in an auction held by DDA, for purchasing
a plot to construct a multi-storey building. On date of auction assessee issued a cheque for
sum of Rs. 44.50 lakhs to PCL ostensibly to purchase purposed multi-storey building. PCL
was declared as successful bidder and deposited earnest money to DDA. PCL admittedly
did not pay monies beyond what it had paid as earnest money and instead got involved with
auctioning authority on issue of flaws in control drawings. Despite dispute obtaining
between PCL and DDA with regard to control drawings, assessee entered into an agreement
with PCL for booking space with above auctioned plot. However, earnest money paid by
PLC was forfeited and suit against DDA was yet pending.
M/S. New Delhi Television Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 14 July, 2017
agreeing with the above offer at page no. 82 & 83 of the paper book. It is further
submitted that the intention of the assessee while participating in the joint bidding
process was to procure natural gas for running of the core hotel business of the
assessee and loss / expenditure incurred and its forfeiture was an allowable deduction
under section 37(1) of the Act as being incurred wholly and exclusively for the
purpose of business. On similar facts the the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of T.K. Elevators India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) had allowed such a
forfeiture of earnest money paid to MTNL and BTPS. The relevant extract of the
said order is reproduced as under:
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 15 December, 2017
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 288 Taxman 514 /(2023) 455 ITR 526
(Mad.)(HC)
Salem Mangnesite (P.)
R. B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 19 September, 1972
R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,
(1973) 3 SCC 257, CIT, Bombay vs. Jalan Trading Co., (1985) 4 SCC 59, Aditya Minerals
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 239 ITR 817, it is held that the advance
given by the appellant to M/s. Gomti Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd. was in the nature of capital
expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure under provision of
section 37 of the I. T. Act.
C.I.T. Central Bombay vs Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd on 9 August, 1985
R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,
(1973) 3 SCC 257, CIT, Bombay vs. Jalan Trading Co., (1985) 4 SCC 59, Aditya Minerals
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 239 ITR 817, it is held that the advance
given by the appellant to M/s. Gomti Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd. was in the nature of capital
expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure under provision of
section 37 of the I. T. Act.
Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad on 5 February, 1998
R.B. Seth Moolchand Suganchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,
(1973) 3 SCC 257, CIT, Bombay vs. Jalan Trading Co., (1985) 4 SCC 59, Aditya Minerals
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 239 ITR 817, it is held that the advance
given by the appellant to M/s. Gomti Foods & Spices Pvt. Ltd. was in the nature of capital
expenditure and therefore, cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure under provision of
section 37 of the I. T. Act.