COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MOHAN MEAKIN LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1001 / 2009HC Delhi15 October 20094 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal allowed the expenses incurred by the assessee for religious ceremonies like puja, hawan, and kirtan. These expenses were considered as a welfare measure for employees and were thus deductible under Section 37(1).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow expenses incurred by the assessee company for puja, hawan, and kirtan under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. These appeals involved common issues across different assessment years for the same assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses incurred by a company for religious ceremonies like puja, hawan, and kirtan are allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA Nos. 964, 967, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 991, 992 1001, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1013, 1014 1015 and 1028 of 2009

Dictated on: 15th October 2009

Commissioner of Income Tax

. . . Appellant

through:

Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocates

VERSUS

'M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd.

... Respondent

through:

Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate

CORAM :-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1.

Common issue which is raised in all these appeals preferred by the Revenue concerns allowing the assessee the expenses incurred in puja, hawan, kirtan etc. under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is the same in all these appeals and issue relates to different assessment orders. Therefore, these appeals were taken up together for hearing.

The build facts are that the accesses company, as a welfare measure

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)

% 15.10.2009

Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Ms. Anshul Sharma,

Adv. for the appellant.

Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar

for the respondent.

+ ITA Nos. 964/2009, 967/2009, 984/2009, 985/2009, 988/2009, 989/2009, 991/2009, 1003/2009, 1014/2009, 1009/2009, 1013/2009 & 1015/2009

Due to typographical error, these cases have been included in the batch of cases which are dismissed today being ITA No. 964/2009. In fact, they are listed for 21st October, 2009.

It is clarified that the aforesaid cases are not covered by the orders passed in ITA No. 964/2009.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

October 15, 2009

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →