CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

15 ITR 105High Court1947#11124 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 151Section 37Section 10(2)(xv)Section 37 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1)section 10(2)enduring benefitroyalty incomesection 21colourable devicesection 10(34)commercial expediencymercantile system of accountinginterest u/s 234brevenue expenditurecapital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2172/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

…on’ble High Courts, in support to the aforementioned view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), which were followed by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

…on’ble High Courts, in support to the aforementioned view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), which were followed by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

…on’ble High Courts, in support to the aforementioned view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), which were followed by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT Central Circle 8 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

…on’ble High Courts, in support to the aforementioned view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), which were followed by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Abhinand Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025
Section 143(3)

…on’ble High Courts, in support to the aforementioned view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), which were followed by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in various decisions, the same are extracted as under: “1) CIT v. Century Spinning Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd [15 ITR 105 (Bom) (HC)] 2) CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)] 3) Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] 4) Bioplus Life Sciences (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 297 (Bang) (Trib.)] 5) ITC v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 734 (Col) (Trib.)] 6) ACIT v. Cadilla Healthcare Ltd [67 SOT 110 (Ahd.) (Trib.)] Abhinand Ventures Pvt. Ltd.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1374/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…e Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ACIT v…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1373/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…e Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ACIT v…

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1255/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…e Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ACIT v…

M/S. Bioplus Life Sciences Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1254/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…e Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions:  Decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of ACIT v…