CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

86 ITR 549Supreme Court of India1972#3869 most cited

What is CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. authority for?

CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. is authority for the proposition that expenditures can be considered revenue expenditures and eligible for deduction.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. · 86 ITR 549 · revenue expenditure · allowable expense · deduction · section 37 · commercial expediency · enduring benefit

Sections most often in play

Section 115PSection 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 80IABSection 143(3)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 80iabsection 115pdeduction under section 80iasection 14a(2)deduction u/s 80iaenduring benefitunabsorbed depreciationcommercial expediencysection 80iasection 80iinterest u/s 234adisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI-TECH STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

ITA 8377/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT LTD. (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE- 2, NEW DELHI

ITA 6847/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

ITA 6664/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI vs. CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI

ITA 4598/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI vs. CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4597/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR KOLKATA ONE HI- TECH STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT SPL. RNAGE-2, NEW DELHI

ITA 3211/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS & PROJECT PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS UNITECH DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

ITA 3155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

ITA 3154/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

ADD ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal

ITA 854/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Delhi International Airport, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

…terprise in issue. Revenue expenditure, on the other hand, is operational in its perspective and solely intended for the furtherance of the enterprise as held in [CIT v Ashok Leyland Ltd (1969) 12 ITR 137,143 (Mad), affirmed by Hon’ble supreme Court in (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC)]. 3.14 In D.P. Chirania & Co Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 12,17 (Karnataka) Expenditure of capital nature is not allowable under the Act. 3.15lt is clearly evident from the proviso that only the expenditure which is allowed as deduction will be covered under section 69C of the Act. in another words the expenditure which will be covered under secti…

AMIT KUMAR,PANIPAT HARYANA vs. DCIT, NFAC (DELHI)

ITA 193/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…iance in this regard can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. [1997] 93 TAXMAN 157 (KAR.); ITAs No.3154, 4598, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…oreover, It is well settled law that any payment made to remove the possibility of recurring disadvantage cannot be considered as payment made to secure an enduring advantage as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC). My attention is also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [2008] 219 CTR 202 (Madras) wherein consultancy fees paid by the assessee has been held as revenue in nature. 24.2.7. It may not be out of place to point out that SPIL, the holding company of the Appellant, had incurre…

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…oreover, It is well settled law that any payment made to remove the possibility of recurring disadvantage cannot be considered as payment made to secure an enduring advantage as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC). My attention is also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. [2008] 219 CTR 202 (Madras) wherein consultancy fees paid by the assessee has been held as revenue in nature. 24.2.7. It may not be out of place to point out that SPIL, the holding company of the Appellant, had incurre…

TATA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIAT 2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…inter se, and this is the only key to resolve the issue in the light of the general principles, which are followed in such cases.” 7. In the case reported in [1969] 72 ITR 137 (Mad)(CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in [1972] 86 ITR 549 (CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.), explaining the position of law, this court stated as follows (page 143): “The facts of each case, the attendant circumstances revolving around the expenditure, the aim, object and purpose of the same, their impact on the assessee, particularly in matters relating to the future of the assessee's trade and business, whet…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4493/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…r Distillery Co. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 188) (SC).The appellant further submitted that compensation paid for premature termination of services is an allowable expense u/s.37(1) of the Act and placed reliance on Apex court decision in case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (86 ITR 549) (SC).The appellant also placed reliance on Apex court decision in case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT (55 taxmann.com 361) and submitted that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income tax Act. In view of its aforesaid submissions the appellant contended that the said expenditure ought to be allowed entirely in the assess…

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1002/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr.Ketan Ved & Mr.AbdulkadirFor Respondent: Mr, Ankush Kapoor, CIT &
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35A

…r Distillery Co. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 188) (SC).The appellant further submitted that compensation paid for premature termination of services is an allowable expense u/s.37(1) of the Act and placed reliance on Apex court decision in case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (86 ITR 549) (SC).The appellant also placed reliance on Apex court decision in case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT (55 taxmann.com 361) and submitted that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income tax Act. In view of its aforesaid submissions the appellant contended that the said expenditure ought to be allowed entirely in the assess…

SEYAD AGRO INDUSTRIES P LTD,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI

The appeals stands allowed

ITA 129/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.128/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Seyad Trading Company Acit बनाम/ Survey No.338/3 House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Accfs-3027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.129/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Seyad Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 110E/20/7, House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aamcs-4443-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37(1)

…o carry on charitable activity, however, the same could not be considered as business expenditure for the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal (1960; 38 ITR 601) and CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972; 86 ITR 549). The concept of diversion of income by overriding title would also be applicable. Finally, the stand of Ld. AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. Upon perusal of copy of sample invoice of SBC, as placed on record, we find that the seller has charged charity @30/- per parcel. The se…

SEYAD TRADING COMPANY,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI

The appeals stands allowed

ITA 128/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.128/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Seyad Trading Company Acit बनाम/ Survey No.338/3 House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Accfs-3027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.129/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Seyad Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 110E/20/7, House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aamcs-4443-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37(1)

…o carry on charitable activity, however, the same could not be considered as business expenditure for the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal (1960; 38 ITR 601) and CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972; 86 ITR 549). The concept of diversion of income by overriding title would also be applicable. Finally, the stand of Ld. AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. Upon perusal of copy of sample invoice of SBC, as placed on record, we find that the seller has charged charity @30/- per parcel. The se…

SEYAD TRADING COMPANY,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

The appeals stands allowed

ITA 127/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.128/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Seyad Trading Company Acit बनाम/ Survey No.338/3 House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Accfs-3027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.129/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Seyad Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 110E/20/7, House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aamcs-4443-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37(1)

…o carry on charitable activity, however, the same could not be considered as business expenditure for the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal (1960; 38 ITR 601) and CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972; 86 ITR 549). The concept of diversion of income by overriding title would also be applicable. Finally, the stand of Ld. AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. Upon perusal of copy of sample invoice of SBC, as placed on record, we find that the seller has charged charity @30/- per parcel. The se…

SEYAD TRADING COMPANY,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT , CC-1, MADURAI

The appeals stands allowed

ITA 126/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.128/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.130/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Seyad Trading Company Acit बनाम/ Survey No.338/3 House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Accfs-3027-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.129/Chny/2021 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Seyad Agro Investment Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 110E/20/7, House Of Seyad Central Circle-1 North Bye-Pass Road, Vs. Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunvelveli – 627 003. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aamcs-4443-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (F.C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 37(1)

…o carry on charitable activity, however, the same could not be considered as business expenditure for the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal (1960; 38 ITR 601) and CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972; 86 ITR 549). The concept of diversion of income by overriding title would also be applicable. Finally, the stand of Ld. AO was upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. Upon perusal of copy of sample invoice of SBC, as placed on record, we find that the seller has charged charity @30/- per parcel. The se…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2