CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd.

60 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1966#1788 most cited

What is CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

When payments are made for distinct and different subject matters or purposes, their nature and tax treatment, including whether they constitute capital or revenue expenditure, must be determined separately based on each underlying purpose, rather than treating them as part of a single, indivisible transaction.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Best & Co. · 60 ITR 11 · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · apportionment of payments · distinct subject matters · non-compete fee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbdepreciation on non-compete feesection 35abtest of enduring benefitnon-compete feesection 55(2)section 35aresulting companyenduring benefitmat creditdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 55

Judgments citing CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd.

JAMNADAS PURSHOTAM PATEL,RAJKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTER-1, RAJKOT

ITA 60/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 250

…o the assessee, and that some of the entries are\naccounted and some are unaccounted, there is no further requirement to establish that\nthe document pertains to or belongs to the assessee.\n12.7.2 Hon'ble SC in the case of CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11/AIR\n1966 SC 1325, observed that although the burden of proof that a receipt is income lies\non the revenue, it is not always so. It was held that the doctrine of shifting onus is\napplicable to income-tax proceedings and when sufficient evidence, either direct or\ncircumstantial, is disclosed by the revenue, adverse inference can be drawn against…

M/S. GARDEN ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 89/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

M/S. GARDEN ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 88/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

M/S. GARDEN ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 87/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

M/S. GARDEN ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 86/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. M/S GARDEN ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 125/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT, RAJKOT vs. M/S GARDEN ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 124/RJT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. M/S GARDEN ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 123/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. M/S GARDEN ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 122/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT, RAJKOT vs. M/S GARDEN ENTERPRISE, RAJKOT

In the result, all appeals of assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 121/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shree Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.121-122/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/S. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2Nd Floor, Mg Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfg5887C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHREE DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.121-122/RJT/2023 (Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Rajkot Vs. M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Vasvani Road, Opp. Shilpan Rajkot – 360001 Tower, Rajkot – 360005 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFG5887C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/./ITA No. 86/RJT/2023 (Assessment Year: (2015-16) M/s. Garden Enterprise, Sadhu Vasvani Vs. DCIT, Cent…

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1113/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1112/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

DCIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1111/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BHARTI HEXACOM LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1110/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

ITA 5453/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 254(1)Section 57

…he assessee that the interest expenditure was genuine & for business purpose?" 2. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) misapplied the law by not drawing an adverse inference against the assessee, as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. BEST Co. Ltd (60 ITR 11), when the assessee failed to produce evidence exclusively in their possession to substantiate the interest expenditure claim?" 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be”. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised represent…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

ITA 5452/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 254(1)Section 57

…he assessee that the interest expenditure was genuine & for business purpose?" 2. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) misapplied the law by not drawing an adverse inference against the assessee, as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. BEST Co. Ltd (60 ITR 11), when the assessee failed to produce evidence exclusively in their possession to substantiate the interest expenditure claim?" 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be”. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised represent…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRATIMA HITESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue in A

ITA 5449/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 254(1)Section 57

…he assessee that the interest expenditure was genuine & for business purpose?" 2. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) misapplied the law by not drawing an adverse inference against the assessee, as permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. BEST Co. Ltd (60 ITR 11), when the assessee failed to produce evidence exclusively in their possession to substantiate the interest expenditure claim?" 3. The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be”. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised represent…

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

…e laws;  Venkatesh Vs CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 78 (Madras),  Smt. Maharani Usha Devi Vs CIT (1892) 8 Taxman 91 (MP),  CIT Vs S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1967 64 ITR 213 (Mad),  Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Vs CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC),  CIT Vs Best and Co. (1966) 60 ITR 11(SC),  DCIT Vs Sandeep Dave (2019 109 taxmann.com 138 (Raipur-Trb),  Vodafone International Holding Limited Vs Union of India (341 ITR 1 SC),  Govindlal Mandhana Vs Add CIT in ITA No(s)3881, 3877, 3095, 3906/ Mum/2010 dated 15.02.2012,  Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT (2010) 126 ITD 100 (Mum) 11 Ravi shroff (AY 2015-16) 8. On the other hand, the…

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "JRG SECURITIES LTD"),KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…3 taxmann.com 388 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) (iii) ACIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd 177 Taxmann (Chennai) (Mag.) (iv) Scott Glass India (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1698/Mum/2003) (ITAT Mumbai) (v) Sri.B.Ravendran Pillai v. CIT (194 Taxman 477) (Kerala HC) (vi) CIT v. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11 (SC) 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of allowance of depreciation cannot be allowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution v. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 233 (Delhi). Accordingly, made the disallowance of depreciation claimed as non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. 7. Being a…

M/S INDITRADE CAPITAL LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ,KOCHI vs. THE ITO, CORPORATE WARD1(1),, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…3 taxmann.com 388 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) (iii) ACIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd 177 Taxmann (Chennai) (Mag.) (iv) Scott Glass India (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1698/Mum/2003) (ITAT Mumbai) (v) Sri.B.Ravendran Pillai v. CIT (194 Taxman 477) (Kerala HC) (vi) CIT v. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11 (SC) 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of allowance of depreciation cannot be allowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution v. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 233 (Delhi). Accordingly, made the disallowance of depreciation claimed as non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. 7. Being a…

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4