CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

254 ITR 377High Court2002#174 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 367,181 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 14ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 35DSection 40A(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancescommercial expediencysection 36(1)(iii)business expediencysection 36(1)section 36disallowance under section 14asection 37section 28revenue expendituresection 40(a)(ia)section 37(1)

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

Sri.R. Pratap, Kollam vs. The ACIT, Kollam

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 37/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

…business man can be compelled to maximize his profit. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1, quoting from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 377. 5.9.9.1The Ld. AR submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court on revenue neutrality in the case of CIT vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. (2010) 236 CTR (SC) 113 was misconstrued both by A.O. and CIT(A) taking a dramatic U turn that all units are independent and separately assessed even while confirming addition on sale of kernels to sist…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…r to sit into the arm chair of the businessman and decide as to what would be reasonable expenditure which is required to be incurred. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that 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 ho…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S Core Health Care Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1968/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. xxx 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 ITA Nos. 1968 & 1969/Ahd/2017 6 . A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 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 b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1456/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-8(1), 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4236G Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

…NCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 (288) ITR The extract of relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:- "We agree with the view by the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Dalmia Cement (P.) 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 3 Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd. itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assu…

Dr. Harprit Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 195/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…mpany was having regular current account then why the assessee has opened saving bank account in his name to make deposit out of cash in hand of company. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decision CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) submitted that the AO cannot guide as to how the business should be conducted by the assessee. The assessee has opened a bank account in which cash deposits were made out of cash in hand with the company. The AO has not pointed out that cash deposits are not out of cash in hand of the company, no discrepancies have been pointed out by t…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Limited 254 ITR 377. Sir, Para 31 & Para 32 SA Builders judgement(supra) stand extracted at Page 14 of Pb. & Hr. High Court case the copy of which as stated above is enclosed. These two paras read as- "31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188: (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del) that once it is estab…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…are two Paras extracted from Apex Court decision in- SA Builders Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and another (2007) 288 ITR 1, wherein the Hon'ble S.C. had agreed per decision of jurisdictional Delhi H.Court(CIT V. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Limited 254 ITR 377. Sir, Para 31 & Para 32 SA Builders judgement(supra) stand extracted at Page 14 of Pb. & Hr. High Court case the copy of which as stated above is enclosed. These two paras read as- "31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement(Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188: (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del) that once it is estab…

M/S. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jindal Dyechem Vs. Dcit Industries Pvt. Ltd. 110, Circle – 4 (1) Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacj0719Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…e. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the department cannot direct the assessee as to how to conduct its business. He also relied upon various decisions especially decisions reported in 1. 176 ITR 169 2. 358 ITR 295 3. 73 ITD 125 4. 230 CTR 601 5. 254 ITR 377 6. 280 RR 1 7. 371 ITR 118 8. 184 taxmann.com 352 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO, TPO and DRP. He submitted that the date of fixing cannot be taken as the date of transfer of right in the property. Only the date on which the property is transferred has to be taken. He accordingly submitted that the order of…

R. Raheja Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4701/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4701/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 143(2)

…st to protect his own interest, for that proposition he relied on the following case law:- 1.CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 2.CIT v. Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 240 (Mad) 3.CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del) 4.Amarjothi Pictures v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 755 (Mad) 17. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that assessee is co-promoter of the ING Financial Services Private Limited (IFSPL). He brought to our notice page 6 of paper book, in which assessee itself confirms the above facts and further submitted that assessee has sold the shares to its s…

Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…s Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 379 ITR 347 (SC), he drew the attention of the bench to para 13 of the order which reads as under:- “In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is 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 arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and ass…

Raj Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3083/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-3083/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2014-15) RAJ KUMAR SHARMA, vs ACIT, CIRCLE 157, DDA OFFICE COMPLEX, 61(1), JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI . NEW DELHI – 110 055 PAN No. AQCPS90521 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Mrs. Surbhi Goyal, CA Respondent by Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-20, New Delhi dated 31.03.2018 for the AY 2014- 15 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts…

Shri Hiren Balkrishana Oza, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 603/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Shri Hiren Balkrishana Oza, I.T.O, K/302 Dec Castel, Vs. Ward-1(3)(2) B/H Hotel Topaz, Ahmedabad. Govindwadi, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-380063. Pan: Aanpo8935B

Section 250

…may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.. . . We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 1461/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…why the amount expended should not have been allowed. Hence, it should be allowed as revenue expenditure. i) S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT fAl [2007] 288 ITR 1 fSCl "We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 2 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 i…

M/S. Sentia Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, ITA number 146/Del/2016 filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2012 – 13 is dismissed

ITA 3498/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisentia Power Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Known As Indiabulls Ward-11(4), Cseb Bhiyathan Power Ltd), New Delhi M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sentia Power Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Circle 23(2) Indiabulls Cseb Bhiyathan New Delhi Power Ltd), M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabci8901M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr DR

…why the amount expended should not have been allowed. Hence, it should be allowed as revenue expenditure. i) S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT fAl [2007] 288 ITR 1 fSCl "We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 2 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 i…

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

…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 disallowed merely on suspicion. We affirm the finding of the…

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

…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 disallowed merely on suspicion. We affirm the finding of the…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 459/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…In such case, disallowance of proportionate interest expense is not justified. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITA no.458-459 /Rjt/2015 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 5 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dalamia Cement (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assess…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 458/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…In such case, disallowance of proportionate interest expense is not justified. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITA no.458-459 /Rjt/2015 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 5 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dalamia Cement (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) Once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assess…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samtel Glass Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2587/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

…ess purposes. Hence, I am of the view that the Ld. AO has wrongly taken the view that interest free advances were granted to the subsidiary company from the amount borrowed on interest. Hon’ble Delhi High court of the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. 330 ITR 595 held that “In the absence of anything to show that the interest free loan 4 given by the assessee company to its subsidiary company was for personal benefit of any director or for any other personal reason, it has to be held that the loan was given for the purpose of business and commercial expediency, therefore, no portion of the interest paid b…

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

…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 disallowed merely on suspicion. We affirm the finding of the ld…