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 affirms CIT(A) decisions, deems NPV payments and project expenses as necessary revenue expenditures.</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata Versus M/s Essel Mining & Inds. Ltd.</h3> ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata Versus M/s Essel Mining & Inds. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of 'Net Present Value' (NPV) of Rs. 1,68,94,820.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,34,08,905 utilized for starting a new project, later abandoned.3. Deletion of addition of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 60,976.4. Deletion of addition of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 2,03,474.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition of 'Net Present Value' (NPV) of Rs. 1,68,94,820:The primary issue was whether the payment of Rs. 1,68,94,820 towards NPV, made to the Divisional Forest Officer as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, should be classified as capital or revenue expenditure. The Assessee argued that this payment was essential for continuing its mining operations and did not result in any tangible asset. The AO considered it a one-time, non-recurring payment and thus capital in nature. However, the CIT(A) allowed it as revenue expenditure, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referenced a similar case (ACIT vs M/s. Ghanashyam Mishra) where such payments were deemed necessary for business continuity and classified as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment was a statutory requirement, did not create any new asset, and was essential for removing operational restrictions, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,34,08,905 Utilized for Starting a New Project, Later Abandoned:The Assessee incurred Rs. 1,34,08,905 on bidding for a tender by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL) for mining expansion, which was ultimately unsuccessful. The AO treated this expenditure as capital in nature, referencing cases where expenses for new projects were capitalized. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal viewed these expenses as part of the Assessee's ongoing business operations in mining. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure did not result in acquiring any capital asset or enduring benefit and was necessary for exploring business expansion. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT-5 vs M/s. Essar Oil Ltd, which treated similar expenses as revenue expenditure, thereby dismissing the AO's addition.3. Deletion of Addition of Bad Debts Written Off Amounting to Rs. 60,976:The AO disallowed Rs. 60,976 claimed as bad debts, arguing these amounts were never treated as income. The Assessee contended these were business-related payments that could not be recovered, thus allowable under Section 37(1) as business expenditure. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting the payments were genuine business expenses incurred in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the business connection and the inability to recover or benefit from the services paid for, thus dismissing the AO's addition.4. Deletion of Addition of Prior Period Expenses Amounting to Rs. 2,03,474:The AO disallowed Rs. 2,03,474 as prior period expenses, related to software implementation costs. The Assessee clarified that Rs. 2,00,000 was an advance payment for ERP implementation, completed in the relevant financial year, and Rs. 3,474 was settled in the same year. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, recognizing the accrual of expenses in the correct period under mercantile accounting. The Tribunal agreed, noting the expenses were appropriately accounted for in the assessment year 2006-07, thus dismissing the AO's addition.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested grounds, emphasizing the statutory and business necessity of the expenditures and their proper classification as revenue expenses under the Income Tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found