Biharilal Jaiswal v. CIT

1 SCC 443Reported decision1996#16350 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 2(42C)Section 24 Section 250 Section 260A Section 263 Section 32

Judgments citing Biharilal Jaiswal v. CIT

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…accepted by the revenue, the binding value of Grasim Industries Ltd. the precedent is not diluted in any manner. In this relation, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (Supp. 1 SCC 443) (1992). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly followed the binding decisions of the Superior Courts. The Ld. AR stated that coordinate bench of ITAT, in the assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025 has followed the decision in the case assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein the Bench allowe…

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…judgment has not been accepted by the revenue, the binding value of the precedent is not diluted in any manner. In this relation, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (Supp. 1 SCC 443) (1992). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly followed the binding decisions of the Superior Courts. The Ld. AR stated that coordinate bench of ITAT, in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025 has followed the decision in the case assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein the Bench allowe…

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax -21 vs. M/S.Remfry&Sagar

ITA/199/2017HC Delhi31 Jan 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 37

…Medical Professionals to violate the Medical Council Act, 1956.” 35. Thus, one arm of the law cannot be utilised to defeat the other arm of law—doing so would be opposed to public policy and bring the law into ridicule. [Biharilal Jaiswal v. CIT, (1996) 1 SCC 443 : 1995 Supp (5) SCR 285] In Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 2 SCC 95] , a fine imposed on the assessee under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was sought to be deducted as a business expenditure. This Court held : (Maddi Venkataraman case [Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v.…

Pr. Commissioner Oflncome Tax -21 vs. M/S.Remfry&Sagar

ITA-199/2017HC Delhi31 Jan 2025

Section 37

M/S Apex Laboratories P. Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

C.A. No.-001554-001554 - 2022Supreme Court22 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

…provisions from a perceived immorality / violation of public policy. Apex repeatedly relied on T.A. Quereshi (supra), M/s K.M. Jain (supra) and CIT v. Pt. Vishwanath Sharma31. We find that none of these judgments find 29 Biharilal Jaiswal v. CIT, (1996) 1 SCC 443. 30 (1998) 2 SCC 95. 31 I.T.R. No. 27 of 1999, Allahabad HC, dated 21.02.2008. 20 much favour with the case of the appellant. T.A. Quereshi addressed a business ‘loss’, not a business ‘expenditure’ as envisioned under Section 37(1). In M/s K.M. Jain, the ransom money paid to kidnappers of the employee of the assessee company was a…