Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Ruling on Income, Expenditure, and Depreciation</h1> <h3>M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) Versus Addl. CIT – Circle 6 (1), Mumbai AND DCIT -7 (2), Mumbai Versus M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.)</h3> M/s Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Albright & Wilson Chemicals India Ltd.) Versus Addl. CIT – Circle 6 (1), Mumbai AND DCIT ... Issues Involved:1. Addition due to mismatch of AIR data with the Assessee's accounts.2. Classification of interest income from fixed deposits and deposits with MIDC/MSEB.3. Disallowance of debit balances of creditors written off.4. Disallowance of infrastructure service management fees and smart SMS fees under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS.5. Disallowance of prior period expenses.6. Classification of income from insurance claims, rent recovery, scrap sale, and miscellaneous income.7. Classification of expenditures on repairs and maintenance as revenue or capital expenditure.8. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding provisions.9. Allowance of depreciation on Ambernath Unit.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition due to mismatch of AIR data with the Assessee's accounts:The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 61,732 due to a mismatch between AIR data and the Assessee's books. The Assessee reconciled up to Rs. 4,93,466 and attributed the remaining Rs. 41,165 to personal expenses of employees. The AO did not provide specific details for the mismatch, making reconciliation difficult for the Assessee. Following the precedent set in AF Ferguson & Co., the Tribunal held that additions based solely on AIR data without specific details are unsustainable. The AO was directed to delete the addition.2. Classification of interest income from fixed deposits and deposits with MIDC/MSEB:The AO classified interest income from fixed deposits and deposits with MIDC/MSEB as income from other sources, denying the Assessee's claim to classify it as business income. The Tribunal upheld this classification, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's decision in Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd., which held that such interest income does not fall under profits and gains of business.3. Disallowance of debit balances of creditors written off:The AO disallowed Rs. 7,64,057 claimed as write-off of creditors' balances, treating it as cessation of liability under Section 41(1). The Tribunal, however, held that the write-off of advances made for services/materials is revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) or as business loss under Section 28. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 41(1) does not apply as these were not credit balances written off.4. Disallowance of infrastructure service management fees and smart SMS fees under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS:The AO disallowed Rs. 14,77,863 paid to Rhodia Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (RAP) for non-deduction of TDS, treating it as fees for technical services. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for thorough examination of the nature of services rendered by RAP, whether they were rendered outside India, and the applicability of the decision in Ashok Pyramal Management Corporation Ltd., which held that retrospective amendments do not create liability for TDS if the payment was made before the amendment.5. Disallowance of prior period expenses:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,28,331 as prior period expenses. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if there was any difference in the tax rate between the years the expenses pertained to and the year they were claimed. If no difference existed, the expenses should be allowed in the current year, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd.6. Classification of income from insurance claims, rent recovery, scrap sale, and miscellaneous income:The AO classified these incomes as income from other sources. The Tribunal held that insurance claims and scrap sales are business income, while rent recovery and miscellaneous income are income from other sources, partially allowing the AO's classification.7. Classification of expenditures on repairs and maintenance as revenue or capital expenditure:The AO treated Rs. 96,27,579 as capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (Appeals)'s decision that these were revenue expenditures, following the precedent in the Assessee's own case for earlier years and considering that the expenses were for maintaining existing assets without resulting in new assets or enduring benefits.8. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding provisions:The AO disallowed Rs. 1,85,465 for non-deduction of TDS on provisions. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (Appeals)'s decision that no disallowance is attracted as the provision was reversed in the next year and offered to tax, following the Mumbai Bench's decision in Industrial Development Bank of India Vs. ITO.9. Allowance of depreciation on Ambernath Unit:The AO denied depreciation on the Ambernath Unit, citing its discontinuation. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (Appeals)'s decision allowing depreciation, noting that the unit was used for part of the year and once assets are part of the block, depreciation is allowable even if the unit is subsequently sold, following the Bombay High Court's decision in GR Shipping Ltd.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found