Binodiram Balchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548)

65 ITR 1High Court1967#6404 most cited

What is Binodiram Balchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) authority for?

The reasonableness of a business expenditure must be judged from the perspective of a businessman, not the tax department, and actual incurring of expenditure cannot be disallowed merely on suspicion without contrary evidence.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Binodiram Balchand · Commissioner of Income Tax · business expediency · reasonableness of expenditure · businessman's point of view · actual incurring of expenditure · disallowance on suspicion · IT Act

Judgments citing Binodiram Balchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548)

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of CIT vs. Raman & Raman 7 ITR 345 (Mad) also rather helps to the Revenue. Similarly, the other Judgments in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 20 ITR 1 (SC), Newtone Studios Ltd. vs. CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 65 ITR 1 (Cal.) and the judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Narasivsdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 127, ITR 221.'The other judgments cited by the A.R. are decided by the Courts considering the facts of the respective cases. Thus, the facts of those judgments are not similar to the facts of the case undcr consideration. Therefore, those j…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Livewire Programme Trdg. Co P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3264/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…achar Ltd. (74 ITR 723), CIT v/s Sales Magnesite (Pvt) Ltd (1995) (214 ITR 1) (Born), CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) (38 ITR 601), Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (1965) (56 ITR 52), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (1967) (65 ITR 1) Cal), JK Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v/s CIT (1969) (72 ITR 296) (All), CIT vis Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd (2002) (254 ITR 377) (Del.), DCIT v/s M/s Parry And Company Ltd. (2008- TIOL-555- ITAT-MAD), Hatiwala Silk Mills v/s Assessing Officer (2002) (19 TT] 284) (Ahm.), CIT vis Walchand and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1967) (65 ITR 381) (SC), and CIT v/s Rajararn Bandeka…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6322/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiat& T Communication Services Vs. Dcit, India Pvt Ltd, Circle-2(1), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan: Aacca8033E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153(1)Section 40

…the assessee: b. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) c. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 d. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) e. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) f. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) g. 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the Department to controvert the same, such expenditure cannot be di…

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7001/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the 27 Department to controvert the same, such expenditure cannot be dis…

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 7115/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the Department to controvert the same, such expenditure cannot be disall…

M/S at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5535/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the Department to controvert the same, such expenditure cannot be disall…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2008-09] AT &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon PAN: AAFCA 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. AT &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon PAN: AAFCA 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CA Department…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR
Section 153(1)Section 40

…e assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) ITA 1015 & 1779/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the Department to contro…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1015/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR
Section 153(1)Section 40

…e assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) ITA 1015 & 1779/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid support services cost and no evidence has been brought by the Department to contro…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…is a question that has to be decided from the point of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the Revenue." -Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) -Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) 5.18 The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, in the case of CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) held that reasonableness of the business expenditure can be judged only from the point of view of a businessman. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits. 5.19 Applying the principles laid down in the aforesai…

M/S Sheetu Educational Service Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…erred to for the above proposition viz., Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 379 & Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 33 of 66 (1967) 65 ITR 1, Calcutta. It was argued that it was the prerogative of the businessman how to run the business and it is not upon the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances it should incur. It was reiterated that every businessman knows his interest best - CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (S…

M/S Sheetu Educational Service Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 352/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…erred to for the above proposition viz., Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 379 & Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 33 of 66 (1967) 65 ITR 1, Calcutta. It was argued that it was the prerogative of the businessman how to run the business and it is not upon the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances it should incur. It was reiterated that every businessman knows his interest best - CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (S…

M/S. Sheetu Educational Services P. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 26/IND/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…erred to for the above proposition viz., Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 379 & Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 33 of 66 (1967) 65 ITR 1, Calcutta. It was argued that it was the prerogative of the businessman how to run the business and it is not upon the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances it should incur. It was reiterated that every businessman knows his interest best - CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (S…

M/S. Sheetu Educational Services P. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 25/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…erred to for the above proposition viz., Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 379 & Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 33 of 66 (1967) 65 ITR 1, Calcutta. It was argued that it was the prerogative of the businessman how to run the business and it is not upon the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances it should incur. It was reiterated that every businessman knows his interest best - CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (S…

M/S. Sheetu Educational Services P Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1) Range-5, Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 24/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 147Section 234BSection 27

…erred to for the above proposition viz., Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 69 ITR 379 & Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 33 of 66 (1967) 65 ITR 1, Calcutta. It was argued that it was the prerogative of the businessman how to run the business and it is not upon the Revenue to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances it should incur. It was reiterated that every businessman knows his interest best - CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (S…

Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3494/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. Cit 1St Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Assessee By: Shri F.V. Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 17.03.2010 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,A Share Broker, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Its Total Income Of Rs.390.03 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao) Completed Assessment On 30. 03.2009,Determining Its Income At Rs.401.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…3494/M/10(07-08) Kotak Securities Ltd. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. CIT 1st Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-40…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 18 means suitable to that end. The term is of wide import and expenditure; it includes such expenditure as a prudent man may incur for the purpose of his business (Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 1 (Cal)). It was held that a sum of money expended not of necessity, and with a view to directly and immediately benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on ground of commercial expediency, in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business, may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade (Usher’s Wiltshire Bre…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA-614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 18 means suitable to that end. The term is of wide import and expenditure; it includes such expenditure as a prudent man may incur for the purpose of his business (Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 1 (Cal)). It was held that a sum of money expended not of necessity, and with a view to directly and immediately benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on ground of commercial expediency, in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business, may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade (Usher’s Wiltshire Bre…