Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

capital expenditure

Delhi H.C : Whether the payment of Rs.1 Crore for exclusive use of the trade mark “HILTON” is to be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure?

Avijit Das / April 20, 2018

High Court Of Delhi Hilton Roulunds Ltd. vs. CIT Section 37(1) Sanjiv Khanna & Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. ITA 325/2005 […]

Section 37, Sec. 37(1), Section 32

S.C : When the assessee had itself capitalized the interest and other expenditure incurred towards creation assets. Whether the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were right and justified in allowing the assessee to claim the said expenditure as revenue expenditure without any just cause

Avijit Das / April 6, 2017

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. Section 37(1), 32 Assessment Year 2000-01 R.K. Agrawal And

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Delhi H.C : The payment made to Honda Motors Limited under the “know how” agreement dated 2.6.1995 is revenue expense and not partly or wholly capital expense

Avijit Das / February 3, 2015

High Court Of Delhi CIT-IV vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Section 37(1) Assessment years 2000-01 to 2002-03 Sanjiv Khanna And

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Delhi H.C : Payment made as royalty has element of capital expenditure

Avijit Das / July 11, 2011

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. G4S Securities System (India) P. Ltd. Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04 And 2005-06 Section

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Bombay H.C : disallowance of software expenditure to the extent as capital expenditure as software used for the first time will have to be considered as capital in nature

Avijit Das / July 4, 2011

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Raychem RPG Ltd. Assessment Year :Â 2001-02 Section : 37(1) J.P. Devadhar And A.A. Sayed,

Section 5, Sec. 37(1)

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the technical know-how fees amounting to Rs. 6,82,00,029 as revenue expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the same was in the nature of capital expenditure being incurred on the acquisition of intangible asset of enduring nature

Avijit Das / March 22, 2010

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. ESSEL Propack Ltd. Section 5, 37(1) Asst. Year 1999-2000 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P.

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Karnataka H.C : the amount of Rs. 8,06,147 incurred by the assessee for replacing the old mono-sound system with a new stereo system viz., Dolby system should be treated as a revenue expenditure and not as a capital expenditure as held by the AO and confirmed by the appellate CIT

Avijit Das / January 25, 2008

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Sagar Talkies Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1996-97 K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna,

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 25% of the amount paid by the assessee as royalty to M/s Jonas Woodhead & Sons, was capital expenditure and, therefore, not allowable as revenue expenditure under the provisions of the IT Act, 1967, for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69 ?

Avijit Das / February 11, 1997

Supreme Court Of India Jonas Woodhead & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1967-68, 1968-69 S.C. Agrawal &

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top