1. Punjab Power Packs Ltd. v. DCIT

71 ITD 163Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#21413 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 31(i)Section 32(1)(iia)

Judgments citing 1. Punjab Power Packs Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

…llowed as deduction placing reliance on the following decisions: - i. DCIT v. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del) ii. Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. v. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj) iii. Dinesh Mills Ld. v. CIT 173 CTR 478 (Guj) iv. Punjab Power Packs Ltd. v. DCIT [1999] 71 ITD 163 (Chandigarh) 19. The Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Punjab Power Pack Ltd. (supra) held as under: - 10. One of the main grounds which weighed with the tax authorities in deciding against the assessee was that the identity of the persons to whom the "costly gifts" have been given was not disclosed. In our opinion such disclosures…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 213/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Acit Vs. M/S.Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. Circle-5 First India Place, Tower ‘C’, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Nagpur Road, Gurgaon-Haryana 122 022 Pan No.:Aadcb 2230 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani Adv. Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 / 06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur For Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 30.03.2017 In Appeal No Cit(A)-4/59/15-16. Grounds Of Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2011-12 Are As Under :

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(9)

…al of the nature of expenses clearly indicate that the same are allowable business expenditure in the course of carrying on of activity of business. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on the following case laws: 1. Punjab Power Packs Ltd. vs. DCIT 71 ITD 163 (Chd.) 2. ACIT vs. Anil Alums {P) Ltd. 98 TT] 56 {Asr.) 3. Vijay Seeds Co. (P) ltd. vs. ACIT 79 ITD 233 (Pune) 4. ITO vs. SimManeklal Industries Ltd. 5. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 140 !TD 642(Murn.) Learned counsel further submitted that the expenditure in this regard are also allowable as the assessee has been subjected to fringe b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 2180/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 7(1), Vs Delhi State Industrial & New Delhi. Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., N-36, Bombay Life Bldg., Connaught Circus, N.Delhi. Pan: Aaacd1257F

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…therefore, it cannot be said that such an expense is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business. 5. Reliance is placed by the assessee on the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Power Packs Ltd. vs DCIT (1999) 71 ITD 163 (Chd) where it is held that the distribution of gifts/sweets by the PSU to employees and associates is an allowable expense. 6. It could be seen from the record that the ld. AO does not doubt the genuineness of the expense. It is also not in dispute that this is a routine expenditure incurred by the assessee for the years prior to and subsequent…

BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 7818/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14A

…not allowable as per section 37 of the Act. 14. Before learned DRP, the assessee placed reliance on following decisions to contend that after deletion of section 37(2) entertainment expenditure is allowable as deduction.  Punjab Power packs Ltd. Vs. DCIT (71 ITD 163)  CIT Vs. Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. (205 CTR 334)(P&H) 15. Learned DRP noticed that the customary gifts given the on the occasion of festivals of reasonable nature has been held to be allowable in the above said two cases. Since the assessee did not furnish details of gift expenses, learned DRP directed the Assessing Officer to allow 25% of t…