Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.44 seconds)Empire Jute Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 1980
As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. (supra) what distinguishes a capital expenditure from revenue expenditure is the fact that former is related to fixed capital of the assessee and the latter leaves the fixed capital untouched.
Installment Supply P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi on 14 May, 1984
In judgment in the case of Rajdev Singh & Co. (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have clearly declared that the earlier judgment in the case of Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable after insertion of the provisions of Section 32(1A) which provisions are now in the Act by way of Expln. 1 to Section 32(1). It therefore, follows that for the purpose of determination of the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee we have to assume as if the premises were owned by the assessee.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Medicamen Biotech Ltd. on 8 November, 2004
In the case of CIT v. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. (supra), the assessee claimed full deduction of various expenses that had been considered in the books of account of the assessee as deferred revenue expenditure. The AO disallowed the expenditure treating the same to be in the nature of capital expenditure.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu ... vs Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd. Etc on 12 August, 1998
Prior to insertion of aforesaid Expln. 1 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 the IT Act contained provisions of Section 32(1A) to the same effect that were inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 w.e.f. 1st April, 1971 and omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988. In this view of the matter the fact that premises are leasehold premises is not of much significance. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Auto Services (P) Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Instalment Supply (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) on which so much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee are no longer applicable. First, after insertion of the provisions of Section 32(1A) and thereafter substitution of the same by way of insertion of Expln. 1 to Section 32(1).
Bharat Commerce 7 Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... on 5 March, 1998
In support of these contentions the learned Counsel relied upon the judgments reported in Bhaiat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 45 CTR (Del) 1 : (1985) 153 LTR 275 (Del), Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT (1980) 16 CTR (SC) 198 : (1980) 123 LTR 429 (SC) and Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 145 CTR (SC) 340 : (1998) 230 LTR 733 (SC).
M/S. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab & ... on 5 October, 1964
In the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have also said the same thing that the replacement may amount to renovation or repairs which may or may not be entitled to deduction under Section 37. Keeping these aspects in mind we now proceed to consider the nature whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee in the assessment years before us can be allowed as revenue expenditure. It is seen that the assessee took on lease office premises located at AIFACS building w.e.f. 1st March, 1994. The assessment years before us are first three years of the lease and the assessee has incurred the following expenditure on renovation of the aforesaid office premises:
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 January, 1986
10. The learned CIT Departmental Representative argued that the assessee obtained the term of nine years as a matter of right. Thereafter the term of lease was further extendable by way of mutual discussion between the assessee and AIFACS. It was apparent that the assessee entered the premises with the intention to stay there for long time to come. That was the driving force behind colossal expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee was a premier company engaged in the field of financial services having well versed and experts on the subject on its payroll and having the benefit of the best accountancy/legal advice. Such an assessee could not commit a mistake in accounts or in law and the fact that in the books of account this expenditure was consistently treated as on "fixed assets", was strong evidence as to the nature of the expenditure. The expenditure was in the nature of non-recurring expenditure incurred in relation to fixed assets i.e. building premises resulting into durable value addition to the fixed assets and long-term advantage to the assessee. The learned CIT Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Addl.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hede Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 10 June, 2002
8. The learned Counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in CIT v. Hede Consultancy (P) Ltd. (2003) 180 CTR (Bom) 70 : (2002) 258 LTR 380 (Bom) and argued that in that case conversion of godown into office was treated to be revenue expenditure. In the case of the assessee there was conversion of erstwhile art gallery/library into office premises.
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Modi Olivetti Ltd. on 29 June, 2004
9. During the course of hearing before us the learned Counsel also referred to certain Tribunal decisions e.g. Jt. CIT v. Modi Olivetti Ltd. (2004) 84 TTJ (Del) 1038 : (2005) 4 SOT 859 (Del), Modem Traders (Chinease Room) v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 53 TTJ (Pune) 237, IAC v. Fibreglass Pilkington Ltd. (New name FGP Ltd.) (1989) 35 TTJ (Bom) 581.