News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 DCIT Circle 17(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. Mosaic India Pvt. Ltd. Y-65, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016
 Gaurav Garg, Near Sharma Pathology, Jarcha Road, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Noida.
 Shri Karam Chand, s/o. Shri Malik Ditta, C/o. M/s. Kissan Agro Hospital, Fatehabad. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Fatehabad.
 Dynamix India Drill – Con Co. G-4, 208-209, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 Vs. DCIT Circle – 62 (1) New Delhi
 M/s Jbm Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax New Delhi
 Shri Harish Chander Kapoor, Prop. M/s. Lucky Enterprises, Gurgaon. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (1), Gurgaon.
 Mrs. Monila Goel, D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-6, Room No.364, E2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.
 M/s. Prince Layers Cum Hatchery, A-53, Indra Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 19 (4), Delhi.
 M/s. Hillman Properties Pvt. Ltd., A-7/6, Jhimil Indl. Area, Shahdara, New Delhi. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(4), New Delhi.
 Mrs. Lata Goel, D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057. vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-6, Room No.364, E2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi.
 Shri Rajesh Chauhan Prop. Chauhan Constructions C - 4/43, Sector – 11, Rohini New Delhi Vs. The Income tax Officer Ward 62(2) New Delhi

Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
October, 10th 2016

S. 37(1): While expenditure for purchase of a capital asset is capital expenditure, guarantee commission to acquire the asset on installment terms is revenue expenditure

Expenditure incurred for the purchase of the machinery was undoutedly capital expenditure; for it brought in an asset of enduring advantage. But the guarantee commission stands on a different footing. By itself, it does not bring into existence any asset of an enduring nature; nor did it bring in any other advantage of an enduring benefit. The acquisition of the machinery on installment terms was only a business exigency. If interest paid on a credit purchase of machinery could be held to be revenue expenditure, we fail to see how guarantee commission paid to a bank for obtaining easy terms for acquisition of the machinery could be regarded as capital payments (Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, [1979] 120 ITR 211 approved in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sivakami Mills Ltd. [1997] 227 ITR 465 followed. Chhabirani Agro Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1991] 191 ITR 226 is not good law)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions