55 (Madras)\n5. CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

59 Taxmann.com 139Reported decision2015#15992 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 115JBSection 194ASection 201Section 201A

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(i)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)commercial expediencyrevenue expendituresection 36(1)section 36capital expendituresection 28section 37(1)section 37section 115

Judgments citing 55 (Madras)\n5. CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1183/PUN/2023 and ITA No.425/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2020-21 Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., K-221, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431 136 Maharashtra PAN : AAPCS8797IL Appellant Appellant by Respondent by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : Shri Hari Krishan : Shri Amol Khairnar & Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : 07.08.2025 : 13.10.2025 CIT(A)/NFAC, Vs. Delhi Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The cap…

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1183/PUN/2023 and ITA No.425/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 and 2020-21 Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., K-221, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431 136 Maharashtra PAN : AAPCS8797IL Appellant Appellant by Respondent by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement CIT(A)/NFAC, Vs. Delhi Respondent Shri Hari Krishan Shri Amol Khairnar & Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde 07.08.2025 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appe…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Bangalore vs. Adarsh Developers, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1160/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2020-21 Adarsh Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.2/4, Langford Garden, of Income Tax, Richmond Town, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAGFA 3674G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Adarsh Developers, of Income Tax, Vs. No.10, Vittal Malya Road, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: AAGFA 3674G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemant Pai, CA Revenue…

Adarsh Developers, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed on its merit and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1082/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2020-21 Adarsh Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.2/4, Langford Garden, of Income Tax, Richmond Town, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAGFA 3674G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Adarsh Developers, of Income Tax, Vs. No.10, Vittal Malya Road, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: AAGFA 3674G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemant Pai, CA Revenue…

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…fact that the expenses incurred by the subsidiaries were inherently revenue in nature and not in the capital field. 92. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (59 Taxmann.com 139), wherein the Hon'ble Court allowed deduction of loss suffered on the sale of shares of a wholly owned subsidiary, which was set up for M/s. Patel Engineering Limited manufacturing products traded by the Assessee, as a business loss. The Hon'ble Court held that the purpose of investment was nothing but furtherance of business objectives an…

M/S. Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2514/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T Ctr 40-44, Sahara India Point Central Circle-6 S.V. Road, Goregaon New Delhi Mumbai Pan : Aafcs 2904 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aanchal Khandelwal, Sr.DR

…esents loss occurred against business investment cannot be brushed aside lightly. There is no dispute that the assessee made investment in furtherance of its objects. 9. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case in CIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive [India] Ltd 59 Taxmann.com 139 was, inter alia, seized with the following question of law: 6 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the loss incurred on the sale of shares of Camelot a wholly owned subsidiary was a business loss when the investment made in the latter was not a…