LIFESTYLE AND MEDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 18(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of holding investments in subsidiary companies, as per its main object, constitutes business activity. Therefore, the claimed business expenses are allowable, and the set-off of business loss against other income is also permissible.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a holding company, claimed business expenses which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the grounds that holding investments does not constitute business. The assessee argued that its main object was to act as a holding company for other group entities involved in content production and aggregation.
What were the issues?
Whether the activity of a holding company in making investments in its subsidiaries qualifies as 'business' for the purpose of allowing expenses and set-off of losses? Whether expenses incurred by a holding company for its operations and statutory compliance are deductible?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 2(13),Section 37(1),Section 71,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 80M
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)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.
- Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax57 citing34 ITR 368 · 1958 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Upasana41 citing225 ITR 845 · 1997 · HC
- Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital20 citing83 ITR 377 · 1972 · SC
- R 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.11 citing108 ITR 895 · 1977 · HC
- 7 SOT 3784 citing7 SOT 378 · 2006 · ITAT
- NDTV Networks Ltd. v. DCIT3 citing173 Taxmann.com 269 · 2025 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
[ PER BENCH: All the captioned appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ld. CIT(A)] for AY 2014-15 to 1016017 and having common issues, therefore, they are dispose- off by a common order. First, we taken assessee appeal for Ay 2014-15 in ITA No. 64/Del/2019. ITA No.3714/Del/2024 & ITA No.64/Del/2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6,
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-18(1), New DelhiDelhi31 Dec 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of holding investments in subsidiary companies, as per its main object, constitutes business activity. Therefore, the claimed business expenses are allowable, and the set-of...
- Ndtv Networks Ltd., New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New DelhiDelhi4 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of business expenditure was incorrect, as investment activities of a holding company can be considered business. The issue of directors' remuneration was remanded for fresh verific...
- Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…Cuttack9 Dec 2021Allowed
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The issues raised by the Pr. CIT had either been settled in favour of the assessee by previous ITAT orders or were ...
- Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs Pr.CIT-2, MumbaiMumbai20 Apr 2020Allowed
Also relies on Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had taken a possible view after proper inquiry, and there was no change in law or facts from previous years. The princi...
- M/S. Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs ITO, NoidaDelhi30 May 2023Allowed
Also relies on Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was inextricably linked to the project implementation, as the FDRs were used as margin money for bank guarantees. Therefore, the interest was a capital receipt that shou...
More judgments on Section 2(13)
- K C Srinivasa Reddy HUF, Bangalore vs DCIT, Central Circle -2(2), BangaloreITA 2293/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle-18(1), New DelhiITA 255/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
- Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-18(1), New DelhiITA 64/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
- Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Chandigarh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), ChandigarhITA 786/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
- Harkrishen Singh Tuli, Chandigarh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), ChandigarhITA 785/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026