116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan v. CIT

102 ITR 491High Court1976#18591 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan v. CIT

Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1505/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Vasant Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(2) 1-11-251/1B, 4Th Floor Signature Towers Vasatnt Towers Kondapur Begumpet Hyderabad-500 084 Hyderabad-500 016

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 35Section 35ASection 37

…has really gone for the purpose of business or not [CIT vs. S. Krishna Rao (1970) 76 ITR 664 (AP), CIT vs. Raman & Raman Ltd. (1969) 71 ITR 345 (Mad), Pioneer Spring & Steel Concern P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 522 (Cal), D.N. SinhaPvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 491 (Cal); RamanlalKamdar vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 489 (Mad)].The AR never explained whether the business carried on by the appellant and the income generated by it has any relation or connection with such expenditure claimed. The Assessing Officer had come to the conclusion that the expenses which are claimed are not related to the business activities…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 95-100 20 CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan Vs CIT 155 ITR 609 (Raj) 201-206 32 DN Sinha Vs. CIT 102 ITR 491 (Cal) 207-211 45 Asis Power Projects Vs. DCIT 370 ITR 256 (Kar) 273-277 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No. 48 CIT Vs. Champa Properties Pvt.Ltd. .212 ITR 303 [Cal] 313-316 49 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd 204 ITR 590 (Guj) 317-320 50 CIT Vs. A Tosh & Sons Pvt.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…e expenditures incurred should be examined from the point of view of a businessman and not of the revenue. 62. To support the above said contentions, the ld AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- - D. N. Sinha (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. (1976) 102 ITR 491, 498 (Cal.) “Whether another employee would have been available at a less salary or whether the assessee could have managed to produce the same trading results by a cheaper expenditure or not is not the true test about the reasonableness of the expenditure.” - J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) “Tribunal cannot determine re…