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.

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ourt applied the decision already taken in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra) and also considered in Madhav Prasad case (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), CIT vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT vs Dalmia Cements (B.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.), CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P & H). Identical ratio was laid down in S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 19 (Kolkata)(TM); 29 taxman.com 221 (Kolkata)(Trib.)(TM). 2.12 To sum up the matter, in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronounceme…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…atedly 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. & 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…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…dings 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 (SC); CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544, 549 (SC)]. 3.9. 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 ci…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―I-2‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hero MotoCorp Limited, JCIT, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi PAN: AAACH0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, M/s. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Page 2 of 484 New Delhi Vs. Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Hero Moto Corp. D…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Investment Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1080/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1080/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) ACIT, Vs ELEL Hotels & Investment Ltd., Circle-13, Hotel Sea Rock, Bank Stand, New Delhi B.J.Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai (APPELLANT) PAN-AAACE2846 (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Manoj Kr. Chopra, Sr.DR Revenue by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Date of Hearing 05.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.12.2013 of…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…3 ITR 228. (ii) Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1977) 223 ITR 101. (iii) CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (iv) Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (v) CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills (1972) 82 ITR 166 (vi)S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 40 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 The A.O. went through the submission of the assessee and distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee by observing as under:- “i) In the case of Jugal Kishore Baldev Sahai v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 228, the issue involved was that HUF had paid remune…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…3 ITR 228. (ii) Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (1977) 223 ITR 101. (iii) CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (iv) Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261 (v) CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg.Mills (1972) 82 ITR 166 (vi)S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 ITA 1797/Mum/2012 & 40 ITA 1798/Mum/2012 The A.O. went through the submission of the assessee and distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee by observing as under:- “i) In the case of Jugal Kishore Baldev Sahai v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 228, the issue involved was that HUF had paid remune…

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Paper Ltd ( Sterlite Infra Ltd), Mumbai

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

ITA 4056/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3865/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3) बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Sterlite Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillayar Koil Street, Kangam Tharamani, Chennai - 600113 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4056/M/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit 2(3) बनाम/ M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. R.No.552, 5Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K.Road, Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Khautau Bldg, 2Nd Floor, Sbs Road, Bank St., Fort, Mumbai - 400023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs1424A

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…to preservation and protected the assets of the company are liable to be deducted. In support of this contention we also found support of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140(SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT Vs. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Firm (1971) 79 ITR 104 (Bom HC( and Hindustan Chemical Works Limited Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561 (Bom. HC) etc. Therefore, in A.Y. 2008-09 view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appel…

Sterlite Infra Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Paper Ltd), Chennai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3865/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3865/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3) बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Sterlite Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillayar Koil Street, Kangam Tharamani, Chennai - 600113 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4056/M/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit 2(3) बनाम/ M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. R.No.552, 5Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K.Road, Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Khautau Bldg, 2Nd Floor, Sbs Road, Bank St., Fort, Mumbai - 400023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs1424A

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…to preservation and protected the assets of the company are liable to be deducted. In support of this contention we also found support of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140(SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT Vs. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Firm (1971) 79 ITR 104 (Bom HC( and Hindustan Chemical Works Limited Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561 (Bom. HC) etc. Therefore, in A.Y. 2008-09 view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appel…

Vipula J Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6064/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Vipula J. Choksi Vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)-4 Siddhi Priya Building Aaykar Bhavan, N.S. Road 4, Jvpd Scheme Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 056. Pan: Acxpc2426M Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Vipula J. Choksi Vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)-4 Siddhi Priya Building Aaykar Bhavan, N.S. Road 4, JVPD Scheme Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 056. PAN: ACXPC2426M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Ajay R Singh Respondent by S/Shri A. Kumbhar Date of hearing: 03-05-2016 Date of pronouncement:25-05-2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (A)-18, Mumbai dated 11-07-2014 passed in appe…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.641/Mum./2007 (Assessment Year : 2003–04) Strides Shasun Limited (Formerly known as Strides Arolab Ltd.) 201, Devavrata, Sector–17 ……………. Appellant Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 PAN – AADCS8104P v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–10(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ITA no.4063/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2004–05) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–10(1), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 v/s Strides Arc…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…Revenue, as laid down repeatedly in the following cases: • 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) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle I…

M/S Bharti Teletech Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 753/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…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. [1964 53 ITR 140 (SC),CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC], etc.” 17. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that when AO has not disputed that the loan was advanced to M/s. Bharti Infotec Ltd. as per Memorandum and Articles of Association to promote business of its subsidiary, the interest claimed by assessee thereon cannot be disallowed. Moreover, it was commercial expediency of the assessee…

I.T.O WD - 56(2), Kolkata vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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 Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 666/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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 Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 665/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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…

I.T.O WD - 56(2), Kolkata vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 581/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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. Rl Exports International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 625/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…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 (SC)], CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc.” 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (supra) has observed as under: “In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. 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 expend…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1978/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 1978 & 1979/Del/2011 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income B-14, Greater Kailash-1, Tax, Circle-12(2), New Delhi Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7764E Assessee By : Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Kumar Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80I

…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 itsel…

E-City Investments & Holdings Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. RG. 8(1) (OSD), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8382/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 E-City Investments & Holdings Dcit, Company Private Limited, Range-8(1)(Osd), बनाम/ 844/4, Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off. New Link Road, Opp. M.K. Road, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaace8030F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Mr.J. Saravanan -Dr

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

…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. 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…