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.

M/S Avantika Infraventure (P) Ltd., Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 23/VNS/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…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. 30. 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. 31. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not uti…

M/S Avantika Infraventure (P) Ltd., Allahabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 22/VNS/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…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. 30. 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. 31. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not uti…

M/S Well Wisher Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1912/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ncidental to the assessee's business. Further, we have to see whether the expenditure in question was bona fide incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business: see Commissioner of Income- tax v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166; [1972] 1 S.C.R. 283 (SC) It is true that in some of the cases this court has held that an expenditure incurred by an accused assessee to defend himself against a criminal charge did not fall within the scope of section 10(2)(xv). Those decisions were rendered on the facts of those cases. That is not the position in this case. On the findings arri…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…0 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that "the expression 'for the purpose for the business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'". Similar observation has also been made in CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 (SC), where the Supreme Court expressed the view that the expression 'for the purpose of the business' is essentially wider than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". The decision in Malayalam Plantations has been freely drawn upon by courts for laying down that the provisions of s. 37(1) and similar provisions of s. 10(2)(xv) of th…

M/S. Estancia It Park Pvt. Ltd., Chengalpattu vs. ACIT (OSD), Corporate Range-2, Chennai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 to 8 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 1814/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No. 1814/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015

For Appellant: Shri N V Balaji , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…year from the date on which the lock-in-period with the Existing Tenant would have ended. 15. The Learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) to support the contention that expenditure incurred for the purpose of business is much wider than the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning profits. He submitted that the expense were incurred on account of business exigency and we wholly & exclusively for the purpose of business of the Appellant. In this regard he relied upon th…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5938/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5935, 5936, 5937, 5938/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., Tax, 40-41, Bhilwara Bhawan, Central Circle-31, Community Centre, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCB9081B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 21 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 02 08 2022 O R D E R PE…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5937/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5935, 5936, 5937, 5938/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., Tax, 40-41, Bhilwara Bhawan, Central Circle-31, Community Centre, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCB9081B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 21 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 02 08 2022 O R D E R PE…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5936/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5935, 5936, 5937, 5938/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., Tax, 40-41, Bhilwara Bhawan, Central Circle-31, Community Centre, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCB9081B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 21 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 02 08 2022 O R D E R PE…

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5935/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.As. No.5935, 5936, 5937, 5938/DEL/2019 Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Bhilwara Energy Ltd., Tax, 40-41, Bhilwara Bhawan, Central Circle-31, Community Centre, New Delhi. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCB9081B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Jain, CA Respondent by: Shri Amaresh Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 21 06 2022 Date of pronouncement: 02 08 2022 O R D E R PE…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e same were incurred by the Appellant Co. to defend its business reputation by proving the genuineness of the transactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its rep…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e same were incurred by the Appellant Co. to defend its business reputation by proving the genuineness of the transactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its rep…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…e same were incurred by the Appellant Co. to defend its business reputation by proving the genuineness of the transactions before the Hon'ble CBI Special Court. The Supreme Court in the case Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd (82 ITR 166) and the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd v. CIT, Delhi (98 ITR 568) has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" encompasses a wider meaning to include not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its rep…

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. Real Trade Technologies, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6939/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-28(2), Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor,Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Real Trade Technologies, F-07, D-02, Real Tech Park, Plot No.-39/02, Sector-10, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aaifr4687C ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. T. Shankar (Sr. Ar.Cit) Respondent By : Sh. M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Dated 26.08.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Citia) Was Correct In Deleting The Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest Paid On Borrowed Capital Amounting To Rs. 2, 12 40,434/- U/S 36(1) (Iii) Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Establish The Commercial

For Appellant: Sh. T. Shankar (Sr. Ar.CIT)For Respondent: Sh. M. Subramanian (AR)
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)

…y held by this Court that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than that the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits' vide ÇIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140, CIT vs. Birla Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 etc…. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also stated in the same order that, we agree with the view token by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not be the business of the assessee itself), the Reve…

Olectra Greentech Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 63/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri L.P.Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…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 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc.” 17. We may also point out that the premises of the assessee is situated in the bounded premises which is subject to supervision of the Excise and Other Govt. Departments, and it is not possible for the assessee to remove any of the material without paying excise duty even if they pertains to the obsolete stock. Nonetheless in the sub…

Rajputana Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

ITA 7587/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar [CIT]–D.R
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ight of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble apex court of India in the case cited as CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC); CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 82 ITR 166 (SC). 12. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee company are set aside and allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 22/12/2021. ( R. K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 22/12/2021. *MEHTA*…

M/S Rajputana Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2919/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar [CIT]–D.R
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ight of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble apex court of India in the case cited as CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC); CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 82 ITR 166 (SC). 12. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee company are set aside and allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 22/12/2021. ( R. K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 22/12/2021. *MEHTA*…

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…ure has not been incurred for the purpose of business. We are relying on following judgment in this regard: • S.A. Builders Limited vs. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) •CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) •Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U'P: 1181TR 200 (SC). •CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del HC) •CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd., 331 ITR 401 (P&H HC) (FB) • Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Ludhiana [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 308(SC)]" Moenus Textile P. Ltd. 9.2 We further find that ld. CIT(A) after appre…

Mukesh Kumar, Bhattu vs. ITO Ward - 1, Fatehabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6443/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mukesh Kumar, Vs. ITO, 44, New Grain Market, Ward-1, Bhattu, Fatehabad. Fatehabad, Haryana. PAN: ATQPK8439E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2019 of the CIT(A), Hisar, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, a…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…eatedly held by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" videCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 , CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 etc. 30. 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. 31. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not uti…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…eatedly held by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" videCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 , CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 etc. 30. 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. 31. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was not uti…