53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

82 ITR 166Supreme Court of India1971#817 most cited

What is 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. authority for?

The expression 'for the purpose of business' is broader than 'for the purpose of earning profits' and includes measures for the preservation and protection of the business.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. · 82 ITR 166 · for the purpose of business · for the purpose of earning profits · commercial expediency · business preservation · business protection

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 1961Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151transfer pricing ordersection 40a(2)(b)fresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authorityspecified domestic transactionsection 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Lotus Herbals P.Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

…under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd (1964) 53 TR 140, and CIT Vs Birla Cotton Spinning Mills (1971) 82 ITR 166. :-11-: ITA. Nos:1734, 1735,1736 & 1737/Chny/2025 20. In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that money is expended, not necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business as held in the case of CI…

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

…under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd (1964) 53 TR 140, and CIT Vs Birla Cotton Spinning Mills (1971) 82 ITR 166. :-11-: ITA. Nos:1734, 1735,1736 & 1737/Chny/2025 20. In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that money is expended, not necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business as held in the case of CI…

M/S.Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1735/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

…under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd (1964) 53 TR 140, and CIT Vs Birla Cotton Spinning Mills (1971) 82 ITR 166. :-11-: ITA. Nos:1734, 1735,1736 & 1737/Chny/2025 20. In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that money is expended, not necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business as held in the case of CI…

M/S. Thiruvalluvar Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for A

ITA 1734/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 11

…under this provision is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profit or gains”. Similar view has been expressed in the case of CIT vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd (1964) 53 TR 140, and CIT Vs Birla Cotton Spinning Mills (1971) 82 ITR 166. :-11-: ITA. Nos:1734, 1735,1736 & 1737/Chny/2025 20. In order to claim a deduction, it is enough to show that money is expended, not necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit, but voluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business as held in the case of CI…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…eld by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140, CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 etc. The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister concern, and what 5 the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, but that has not been done. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…d. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open mark…

Bueno Insta Pizza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4280/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle 78/9, 2Nd Floor, 6(1)(2) Krishna Vihar, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. R. A. Kidwal Road, Mumbai- 400020. Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan: Aagcb3987J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karna ThakerFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. A.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…n of Bombay High Court in case of Western India Vegetable Product Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 151 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Ltd.; A. Y.2016-17 iii. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Birla Cootn Spinning And Waving Minerals (1971) 82 ITR 166 iv. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarabahi Sons Ltd reported in (1973) 90 ITR 318. 6.5. The Ld.AR submitted that in all the above decisions the ratio rendered is that, the expenses incurred for setting up of business are allowable as revenue expenditure even though they incurred before the commencement of business. H…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…eld by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140, CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 etc. The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister concern, and what the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, but that has not been done. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…eld by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140, CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 etc. The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister concern, and what the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, but that has not been done. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized…

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…eld by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140, CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 etc. The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister concern, and what the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, but that has not been done. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not utilized…

ACIT 3(3)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…eld by this court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166, etc.” 16. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in record. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of this case as already noted above, it is manifest that the advance to subsidiary company of the assessee became imperative as a business expediency. The assessee paid the EMI of loan directly from the bank maintai…

ACIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…eld by this court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166, etc." 16. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in record. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of this case as already noted above, it is manifest that the advance to subsidiary company of the assessee became imperative as a business expediency. The assessee paid the EMI of loan directly from the bank maintain…

ACIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), etc. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), 27. The High Court and The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and what the sister which the assessee advanced the money to it…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Vkt Ventures LLP, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), etc. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), 27. The High Court and The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and what the sister which the assessee advanced the money to it…