How many judgments cite CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.?

417 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 14A, Section 37, Section 37(1).

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

254 ITR 377High Court2002#173 most cited

What is CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. authority for?

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

417

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. · section 36(1)(iii) · section 37(1) · commercial expediency · business expenditure · nexus with business · Assessing Officer's powers · reasonableness of expenditure · interest free advances · disallowance of interest · SA Builders

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 422

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 14A Section 37 Section 37(1)Section 35D Section 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

interest free advances commercial expediency section 36(1)(iii)business expediency section 36(1)section 36 disallowance under section 14a section 37 section 28 revenue expenditure section 40(a)(ia)section 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…ecurities by following the principle of lower of cost or market price :- “i. CIT v. Bank of Baroda (Bom) 262 ITR 334; ii. CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd (Kar) 174 ITR 616; iii. Bank of Cochin Ltd v. CIT (Ker) 94 ITR 93; and iv. Indo- Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (44 ITR 22) (Mad).” 14.5. The Ld.AO rejected the submissions of the assessee by observing as under: “It was also clarified that there was a write back of Rs. 88.68 crores in respect of investment depreciation which has been offered for tax by bank. 17.3 The submission of the assessee is not accepted on the following grounds: (a) The assessee maintains securi…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…with the existing business and rightly allowed it as revenue expenditure which was upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. 13.2. We also refer to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del) wherein it held that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business, the revenue cannot AY 2008-09 justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is the reasonable expenditure having re…

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

M/S.RUNWAL COMMERCIAL ASSETS PVT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH WHEELABRATOR ALLOY CASTINGS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7623/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Runwal Commercial Ito Ward-15(3)(1), Assets Pvt. Ltd. (Now Aayakar Bhavan, Merged With Vs. Maharshi Karve Wheelabrator Alloy Road, New Marine Castings Limited) Lines, Churchgate, Runwal & Omkar Mumbai-400 020 Esquires, 4Th Floor, Off Eastern Exp. Highway Opp. Sion Chuan Bhatti Signal, Sion East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aajcr7366J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Runwal Commercial ITO Ward-15(3)(1), Assets Pvt. Ltd. (Now Aayakar Bhavan, merged with Vs. Maharshi Karve Wheelabrator Alloy Road, New Marine Castings Limited) Lines, Churchgate, Runwal & Omkar Mumbai-400 020 Esquires, 4th floor, off Eastern Exp. Highway Opp. Sion Chuan Bhatti Signal, Sion East, Mumbai-400 022 PAN/GIR No. AAJCR7366J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 16.02.202…

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

…ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd.[1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 (SC)  J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT[1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC)  Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC)  Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Del)  Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 129 ITR 105 (Guj)  Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 236 (Del.);  DCIT vs ICICI Web Trade Ltd.: ITA No. 6559/M/2006 (Mum.). 14. With regard to disallowance of Rs. 3 lakhs for MIS information to M/s Big Think Media P Ltd, it is submitted that, since in the present case also, the payme…

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…o be allowed if the assessee advances it to a sister concern. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court held thus: 69 34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how m…

ACIT-15(1)(2),MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the a In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment ssessee for Assessment

ITA 6215/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Namrata R. Dedhia

…r: as under: “34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the it is established that there was nexus between the it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not expenditure and the purpose of the b…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6074/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)

…e countenanced in law. The Hon'ble Supreme\ncourt in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held\nas under:\n\n“34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT\nvs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once\nit is established that there was nexus between the\nexpenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not\nnecessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the\nRevenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair\nof the businessman or in the position of the board of directors\n\nand assume the role to decide how…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6073/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)

…be countenanced in law. The Hon'ble Supreme\ncourt in S. A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner Of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) 2007 288 ITR 1(SC) has held\nas under:\n“34. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT\nvs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once\nit is established that there was nexus between the\nexpenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not\nnecessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the\nRevenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair\nof the businessman or in the position of the board of directors\nand assume the role to decide how mu…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6072/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(2)

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

…s incurred on grounds of commercial expediency." 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter considering the various aspects of the matter has concluded as under: "We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is…

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…d on grounds of commercial expediency.\"\n\n17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter considering the various aspects of the matter has\nconcluded as under:\n\n\"We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart)\nLtd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the\nexpenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business\nof the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of\nthe businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide\nhow much…

SHRI NATARAJAN SOMASUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 788/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Natarajan Somasundaram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, E-105, Periyar Vegetable Market, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092. Chennai. [Pan:Aajps6303B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 443 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, In The Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay Of 450 Days By Imposing Cost

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 24Section 32

…eading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders v. CIT (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to agree with the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del), which held that once it is established that there was a nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decid…

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…as deductible. 11. Recently in Hero Cycles P. Ltd. v. CIT, [2016] 236 Taxman 447/[2015] 63 taxmann.com 308/379 ITR 347 (SC), matter has been discussed and Court agreeing with Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd., [2002] /121 Taxman 706/254 ITR 377 (Delhi), has observed; "Once it is established that there was a nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of a businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the said role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circ…

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

NEOVANTAGE BIO-TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

…t was submitted that income cannot be taxed on a hypothetical basis unless there is a real accrual of income in the hands of the assessee and obligation to pay the same on the part of MN Science. Further reliance was placed on CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd. (254 ITR 377), wherein it was held that commercial expediency lies within the domain of the assessee, and business decisions are not to be substituted by the Revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to delete the addition made by the Ld. AO. 27. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 28. We have considered the ri…

NEOVANTAGE INNOVATION PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…at the rate of interest at which the loan was given by the assessee being a business decision of the assessee could not be challenged by the Revenue and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Dalmia Cement Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377. The I.T.A.T. also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case had held that no notional addition on account of lesser rate of 13 interest charged could be made. The relevant findings of the I.T.A.T. at para 16 of the order are as follow: “16. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties, perused the findings o…

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

ITA 473/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…at the rate of interest at which the loan was given by the assessee being a business decision of the assessee could not be challenged by the Revenue and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Dalmia Cement Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377. The I.T.A.T. also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee's own case had held that no notional addition on account of lesser rate of interest charged could be made. The relevant findings of the I.T.A.T. at para 16 of the order are as follow:…

Showing 1–20 of 417 · Page 1 of 21

...