Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 133(6), Section 147.

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

Q: How many judgments cite 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.?

126 judgments on BharatTax cite 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (82 ITR 166), spanning 2006 to 2025.

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 14A Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)amp expenditure section 92ba true and full disclosure sanction under section 151 transfer pricing order section 40a(2)(b)fresh tangible material section 148(2)sanctioning authority specified domestic transaction section 36(1)(iii)

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

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 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

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…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas

Section 143(3)

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…s laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly in the following cases: - CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 - 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 U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) -C1T v. Rockinan Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) -CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. : 345 ITR 241 (Del HC) It is a settled positi…

Mason Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…d 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. fl9641 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. r 19711 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…

M/S Iol Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-I, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…l expediency. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • C.R. Auluck & Sons (2014) 360 ITR 93 (P&H) • S.A. Builders, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Malyalam Plantations (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Tulip Star Hotels (2012) 21 Taxmann 97 (SC) • Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 128 (Bom) • Hero Cycles (SC) Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008 • CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2017) 79 taxmann.com 364 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 • CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del) • CIT Vs. H.P. Sugar Fact…

Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

…y 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 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), etc. 8. The ld AR of the assessee further stated that the AO as well as the CIT (A) has without appreciating the fact and material on record as stated above has disallowed the interest expenses. 9. On the other hand, the Ld CIT-DR has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and careful…

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 82/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…peatedly 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" vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd, [1964] 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. AWvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 etc. It is important to mention that even the investments made in share capital of the subsidiary companies by the assessee could not be called the investments for non-business purpose because in the memorandum and the articles of the company, one of the objects the assessee-company mentioned is "investments in shares of other companies by the as…

Mihir Bipin Parekh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 3377/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…any such process or proceedings which might have resulted in the reduction of its income and profits. The said decision has been rendered after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT V/s Birla Cotton Spinning and weaving Mills Ltd. (82 ITR 166) wherein it was observed that the essential test which has to be applied is whether the expenses were incurred for the preservation and protection of the Shri Mihir Bipin Parekh Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2008-09 assessee's business from any such process or proceedings which might have resulted in the reduction of its income and profits and whet…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…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.” In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itse…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Permali Wallce Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 222/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Permali Wallace Ltd. Acit-3(1) बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcp7557R Appellant By Miss Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 02.07.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 22.02.2016 By Acit- 3(1), Bhopal. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…td. vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261(SC) 2. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC). 3. Addl. CIT vs. Rajashtan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 465(Raj) 4. CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd./Birla Bros. (P.) Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. Per Contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities. Permali Wallace Ltd. ITANo.222/Ind/2018 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the judgment referred and relied by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. The short is…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1183/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…25) 10 Tax cases 155(HL) iii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iv) CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) v) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 vi) CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166(SC)” The ld. CIT(A) after considering facts of the case , assessment order and the submissions made by assessee held as follows: “6.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same it has been noticed at the outset that the interest free funds available with the appellant company in the form of…

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Dcit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Acit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Central Circle-13, Investments Ltd., New Delhi R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…rty from expropriation, coercive process or hostile title, payment of statutory dues and taxes and things incidental to carrying on business and expenses relating thereto were allowable business expenses. This ruling was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [82 ITR 166], I am also of the view that these expenses on security, electricity and water are outright consumables and cannot be capitalized as these expenses do not add any value to the capital asset. 3.4 However, from the details filed I find that amount totaling Rs.53,00,209/- was paid to consultants for planning and concept design, architectural services…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…peatedly 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.‖ Also, in the case of CIT vs United Breweries Ltd 204 Taxmann 2…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR

Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…e immediately. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.: 53 ITR 140. The apex Court reiterated the same approach in the following cases: • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT : 118 ITR 200 (SC) In the present case, sharing of MSIL resources by group/ subsidiary companies providing insurance services was only meant to promote the purpose of MSIL’s business and hence the entire expenditure incurred by the company was allowable as deduction. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the e…

ITO, Karauli vs. Manneta Garg, Karauli

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed while cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 68

…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 Weaviong Mills Ltd.[1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc. “ 13. In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the…

M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 740/HYD/2012[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S Hyderabad Distilleries & Vs Acit Wineries Pvt. Ltd. A-4, Ida, Uppal Circle-2(2) Hyderabad-39 Hyderabad Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 5

…he above mentioned decisions, the Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in reference to expenditure incurred for the purpose of business which are as follows: • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 (SC) 9ITA No 740/Del/2012 • S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following decisions in reference to reasonableness of expenditure to be seen from point of view of business: • CIT vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC) • J. K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT 72 ITR…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 1649/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1649/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Tcg Urban Infrastructure

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hanshing, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…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.' 13. In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the…

Tcg Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue

ITA 1622/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hanshing, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)