Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.52 seconds)
Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, ... vs Dcit 10(2)(2), Mumbai on 27 November, 2017 cites

Consumer Online Foundtion vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 April, 2011

38. We find that the CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the provisions of section 22A of Airports Authority of India Act 1994, under which the assessee has collected the development fees and also the terms and conditions attached to the said collection as well as its utilization. Not only this, the CIT(A) has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Online Foundation vs. Union Of India & Others [2011] 5 SCC 350 (SC), where the apex court has categorically made the distinction between section 22 and section 22A of Airports Authority of India Act. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that development fees is in the nature of cess or tax for generating revenue for specific purposes as mentioned in section 22A(a) to section 22A(c) of the Airports Authority of India Act. In the said judgment it was held that the nature of levy u/s. 22A of 2004 Act is not charges or any other consideration for services for the facilities provided by the Airports Authority. The learned DR, even though relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, he did not deny the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act. It is not denied that the development fees so collected are utilized only for the purpose of aeronautical assets as per the provisions of section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act. In view of this fact, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), which warrant our interference, while holding that the development fees so received by the assessee is a capital receipt. We accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss ground nos.10 & 11 in A.Y. 2010-11 and ground no.5 in A.Y. 2011-12. This disposes of all the grounds in the revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11."
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 29 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980

There may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may, none the less, be on revenue account and the test of enduring benefit may break down. It is not every advantage of enduring nature acquired by an assessee that brings the case within the principle laid down in this test. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 743 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) on 24 August, 1966

Sahar Elevated access road from Western Express Highway to Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. The ownership of this road would remain with the MMRDA and would not be transferred to the assessee. The assessee's interest, in our view, in this road was that the passengers would have a smooth access to Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport and provide a look as per international standard. The rest of the expenditure relate to the maintenance and upkeep of the existing assets. The Assessing Officer treated the whole of the expenses to be capital expenditure as the assessee itself has treated the said expenditure in the books of account as capital expenditure. The allowability of expenses for the purpose of Income tax, as has been held by us in the previous paragraphs, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), will depend on the provision of income tax Act and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts be decisive or conclusive in the matter. Since the ownership of the road vest with MMRDA, the assessee in our opinion does not get any direct benefit of enduring nature. No doubt the passengers travelling to the international airport were benefited by way of smooth access to the airport. The assessee made one time contribution for the construction of the said road. By this contribution no asset is created by the assessee but in commercial sense, in our opinion, the incurrence of such expenditure certainly facilitates the business of the assessee. This expenditure cannot be held to be capital expenditure merely because the business of the assessee is getting enduring benefit. In our view, the business exigencies demand the assessee to incur this expenditure by making the contribution to MMRDA.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 271 - Full Document

National Organic Chemical Industries ... vs Dy. Cit on 31 December, 2004

24. Further, we noted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Organic Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 410 (Bom) took a view that the assessee incurred expenditure for the purpose of construction of jetty for handling, storage and transportation of materials manufactured or handled by the assessee. The assessee was granted license by the state government. Under the terms of license, the assessee was given the right to use the jetty without payment of any charges for a period of three years from its completion. However, the ownership would remain with the state government. It was held that such expenditure was incurred with a view to obtain commercial advantage and, therefore, it was revenue expenditure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next