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, Circle-2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…urpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd., AY 2009-10 Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 (SC), etc. 31. 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. 32. It is true that the borrowed amount in question was n…

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)`, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…Tax Cas 103, 118 (CA) n) Ebrahim Aboobaker v CIT (1971) 81 ITR 664 (Bom.) 2.7. It is to be seen whether the expenditure was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [see, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC); CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544, 549 (SC)]. 2.8. So far as, issue of quantum of the expenditure to be incurred is concerned, we are of the view, it is for the assessee to decide how best to protect his own interest. It is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Incite Homecare Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 896/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal
Section 36Section 43(1)Section 69

…ion “for the purpose of business” which, it was noted is wide in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning profits” as held in CIT Vs Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (S.C) and CIT Vs Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (S.C). Thus, as far as the legal and factual position as considered by the CIT(A), we find there is no infirmity pointed out by the Revenue on record. The fact that to the extent relief has been granted, the conclusion has been drawn on the basis of facts that the purchase and construction was from the interest free funds available to the assessee…

Rajasayee Fine Linen Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 1034/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 37

…ed wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and hence the expenses are to be allowed in full u/s 37 and relied on the decisions of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, CIT vs Birla Cotton Spg & Wvg Mills Ltd / CIT vs Birla Bros P Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) , CIT vs Panipatwoollwn & General Mills Co Ltd (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC), CIT vs Sales Magnesite P Ltd (1995) 81 Taxman 334 (Born.), Industrial Feeders vs ACIT, (2016) 68 taxmann.com 92 (Madras), DCIT vs Alliance Retreat P Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 249 (Chennai - Tribunal) etc. 3.1 Regarding the high percentage of consumption of raw materi…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…e placed reliance on a catena of following decisions :- - CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 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. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) Page 15 - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd.: 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…acts of the case is not permissible. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has relied upon the following decisions: a) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) b) CIT V Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd 82 ITR 166 [SC] c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 [SC] 8. Reliance was also placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises Vs. CIT reported at 254 ITR 216 [SC] where, as per the ‘Head Notes’, it has been held as under: “In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.-6021/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Addl. CIT Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. C.R. Building, PAN-AAACM0829Q New Delhi. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra Revenue by Sh. Aprender Kumar Date of Hearing 21.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2017 ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal challenging the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer u/…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…gs are taken arose out of and was incidential to assessee's business. Further, it is to be seen whether the expenditure was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [see, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 166 10 Hiranandani Akruti JV (SC); CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544, 549 (SC)]. 2.8. So far as, issue of quantum of the expenditure to be incurred is concerned, we are of the view, it is for the assessee to decide how best to protect his own interest. It is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assess…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…eme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for comme…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…eme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for comme…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…eme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for comme…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…me 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.9 The A.O 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 10 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 whether it was for commer…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…me 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.9 The A.O 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 10 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 whether it was for commer…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…me 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.9 The A.O 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 10 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 whether it was for commer…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…me 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.9 The A.O 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 10 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 whether it was for commer…

Virender Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. Pan: Abtpg 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…d by tills court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" vide CITv.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 5 not necessarily be the business of the assessee it…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…of and was incidental to assessee's business. Further, it is to be seen whether the expenditure 10 Wadhwa Constructions was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [see, Cl'T v. Birla Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC); CrT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544,549 (SC)]. 4.2 Now, we shall examine the provision of section 37(1) of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditu…

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…aken any loan or merely because the expenditure had been debited in the profit and loss account under a different nomenclature) the transaction could not be called into question as a colourable device. In Birla Cotton Spinning & Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 166(SC), it has been held that "It must be remembered that the earning of profits and the payments of taxes ,are not isolated and independent activities of a business. These activities are continuous and take place from year to year during the whole period for which the business continues. If the assessee takes steps for reducing its liability to tax:…

M/S. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. The DCIT, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

…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…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…taken any loan or merely because the expenditure had been debited in the profit and loss account under a different nomenclature the transaction could not be called into question as a colourable device. In Birla Cotton Spinning & Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) it has been held that “It must be remembered that the earning of profits and the payments of taxes are not isolated and independent activities of a 11 M/s.Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 business. These activities are continuous and take place from year to year during the whole period for which the business continues.…