254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

75 ITR 373Supreme Court of India1970#559 most cited

What is 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is capital or revenue in nature based on its aim, object, and resultant advantage to the business.

172

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT · 254 ITR 657 (Del) · capital vs revenue expenditure · expenditure for business · aim and object of expenditure · resultant advantage · Sitalpur Sugar Works Vs. CIT · International Airport Authority of India Vs. CIT · Jagmohan Rao Vs. CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 148Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 43b(f)section 274(1)section 211section 50bapproved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)

Judgments citing 254 ITR 657 (Del); Hardillia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

Krishna Diam, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 874/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Krishna Diam, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 873/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 872/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 871/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 870/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 869/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 868/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Sukhpal Bijaram Prajapat, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 867/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 866/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 865/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 864/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 863/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 862/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 861/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Parshwanath Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC - 8 (3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 860/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 859/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 858/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Karishma Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 857/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 856/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…

Karishma Diamond Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year,

ITA 855/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

…hen the assessee itself has made a statement that he has a separate business income, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in making the addition. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V. Jaganmohan Rao Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 373 (SC) dated 31st July, 1969 and decision of Delhi High Court in case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 465 (Del) dated 14th July, 2014 to submit that the addition need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found. He further referred to the decision of the Indore Bench of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Tollaram Hasso…