RANI SHAVER POULTRY BREEDING FARM PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The ITAT held that the appellant did not carry out any business activity. Consequently, the disallowance of expenditures claimed by the appellant was sustained.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farm Pvt Ltd, claimed certain expenditures as business expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the appellant did not carry out any business activity in the year in question.
What were the issues?
Whether the appellant was engaged in business activity and if the claimed expenditures were allowable business expenses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 129/2013 . . . RANI SHAVER POULTRY BREEDING FARM PVT LTD ..... Appellant . Through : Mr Prem Nath Monga with Mr Manu Monga . . . versus . . . CIT ..... Respondent . Through : Mr Abhishek Maratha . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 13.03.2013 . CM 3927/2013 . Allowed subject to all just exceptions. . CM 3928/2013 . The delay in re-filing is condoned. . This application stands disposed of. . ITA 129/2013 . Mr Maratha is present on behalf of the respondent on advance notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. . Admit. . The following substantial questions of law are framed for the consideration of this Court:- . (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and / or on facts in holding that the appellant did not carry out any business activity in the year in question? . . . . . (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining disallowance of ` 20,31,417/- representing the aggregate amount of expenditure under different heads, claimed by the appellant to have been incurred for the purpose of its business? . . . (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the expenses under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the alternative? . . . Printing of paper books is dispensed with. The counsel for the parties may file additional documents within three months, provided they were part of the record before the Tribunal. . List in due course. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . MARCH 13, 2013 . SR . . . $ 3 .
More judgments on Section 57(iii)
- Raghuraj Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs DCIT-ACIT Cirle Silchar/DCIT Circle 1…ITA 143/GTY/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Nagini Cooperative Credit Society Limited… vs ITO, Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore, BengaluruITA 619/BANG/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3412/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3411/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3410/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026