DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning branding expenses and legal fees, and the acceptance of the assessee's cash system of accounting. The assessee, Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd., had challenged these additions before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether branding expenses paid to an associate concern were for business purposes and whether legal fees constituted capital expenditure. The other key issue was the validity of the assessee's cash system of accounting.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.164 citing19 ITR 191 · 1951 · SC
- CIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.65 citing263 CTR 686 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT46 citing67 SOT 110 · 2012 · ITAT
- Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT46 citing81 ITR 754 · 1971 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.38 citing20 ITR 475 · 1951 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd.20 citing81 Taxmann.com 159 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.9 citing15 ITR 105 · 1947 · HC
- DCIT v. Stylam Industries9 citing162 Taxmann.com 734 · 2024
- Bioplus Life Sciences (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax7 citing138 Taxmann.com 297 · 2022
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No. 2118/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2171/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT, CC-8(2), Abhinand Ventures Private Ltd. Room No. 658, 6th Floor, (Earlier known as Balaji Trust), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, , Vs. 11, Essar House, KK Marg, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 PAN: AACTB0950C Revenue -अपीलाथ" / Appellant Assessee - ""थ" / Respondent :
C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Abhinand Ventures Private Ltd. DCIT, CC-8(2), Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, (Transferee of dissolved Balaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, , Trust), Vs. 11, Essar House, KK Marg, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400034 PAN: AACTB0950C Assessee -अपीलाथ" / Appellant Revenue - ""थ" / Respondent :
ITA Nos.2117,2118, 2170, 2171, 2172 & CO 110/ Mum/2025 Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri Narendra Baheti,
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026