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#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 367,164 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.

M/S at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5535/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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…

DCIT, Circle - 14(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navketan Nurshing Home Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-14(2), V/S. M/S Navketan Nurshing Aayakar Bhawana, Home Pvt. Ltd., 1B, Plot Porba, 6Th Floor, 110, No.193 Sector-Iii, Salt Shantipally, Kolkata-107 Lake City, Kolkatka-91 [Pan No.Aabcn 9379 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manoj K. Tiwari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.10.2017 Passed In Case No.A.No.120/Cit(A)-5/Cir-14(2)/15-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Identical Both Substantive Grounds Seek To Reverse The Cit(A)’S Findings Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Sec. 40A(2) Disallowance Of ₹10 Lac & ₹1,70,63,423/- Representing Director’S Salary & Operation & Management Services Paid To Holding Company M/S Columbia Asia Hospital Pvt. Ltd.; Respectively. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Reads As Under:- 4.2. The A/R Of The Appellant In His Submission Stated That "Columbia Asia Is An International Healthcare Group Operating A Chain Of Modem Hospitals Across Asia. Columbia Asia Hospitals

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…s. Columbia Asia Hospital Pvt. Ltd. was for the purpose of business. As held by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT [2007] 288 ITR "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 ITA No 47/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 DCIT Cir-14(2) Kol Vs. M/s Navketan Nurshing Home Page 7 the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessma…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 38, (Presently DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5812/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5812/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) In The Matter Of: बनधम/ Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 (Presently Dcit., Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Vs. Air India Building, Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai- Skil House, 209 Bank 400021. Street Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9240E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)(Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Views Of The Ao By Confirming The Disallowance In Respect Of Interest Paid Amounting To Rs.4,00,55,791/- 2. On The Facts & In The Circusmtances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-(A) Has Erred In Directing The Ao To Compute The Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Of The I.T. Act, In Respect Of Shares/Investment In Mutual Funds, Which Have Yielded Dividends.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…l expediency. In this context, we may reproduce hereinafter the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) :- “We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. 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 much is…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…td (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) 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 89 | P a g e AT & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt Ltd V DCIT ITA No 2538/Del/2014 (A) & ITA NO 2518/Del/2014 (D) A Y 2009-1…

Baroda Dist. Co.Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3283/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(iv)

…gross total income". The contention of the Revenue that once deduction stands allowed, the "income" in view of the deduction ceases to be a part of the total income, was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 736 (Delhi), for the following additional reasons:— (1) The word "part" used in the Rule was to describe income fulfilling the description i.e. the category or class of the income. In other words it should indicate an identifiable section, category or class of income rather than mere portion or amount of such income. The question raised should be "wh…

Baroda Dist. Co.Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3282/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(iv)

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

…justification of incurring or not incurring any particular expenditure. So long as the expenditure incurred is for business purposes, the same is allowable as business deduction in view of the following High Court decisions: " CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del.) " D & H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 149 ITR 400 (MP). 142. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the AO has disallowed Rs 61,65,830/- out of Foreign travel expenses mainly on the grou…

Sun Infra, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 4988/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Sun Infra, The Income Tax Officer 14(3)(4), 288, 3Rd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Kalbadevi, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400002 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Abjfs8245H

For Appellant: Shri Vallabhdas D. Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.K Singh (Sr.DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Sun Infra, The Income Tax Officer 14(3)(4), 288, 3rd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Room No. 608, 6th Floor, Kalbadevi, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400002 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 PAN: ABJFS8245H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vallabhdas D. Parmar (AR) Revenue by : Shri M.K Singh (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing: 25/01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.0…

Pioneer Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1373/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram dFor Respondent: Shri K.Gopala Krishna

Section 14ASection 27(1)

…) Ltd.v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, [2015] 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC) where in Hon’ble Apex court held as under: “13. In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 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…

Pioneer Genco Limited., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1372/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghu Ram dFor Respondent: Shri K.Gopala Krishna

Section 14ASection 27(1)

Gvk Power & Infrastructure Limited, Kadiyam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.553/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Gvk Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-48, Gvk Power Plant Income Tax Jegurupadu, Kadiyammandal Circle-2(1) East Godavari Rajamahendravaram [Pan :Aaacj5599A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओ रसे/ Appellant By Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 5

…Four out of six subsidiaries are reporting negative reserves and surplus figure& It reflects that losses are being accumulated over a period of time. 5.1. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 and held that there is no prudence in disposal of interest bearing funds to the subsidiary companies which are reporting losses and accumulating it and bearing financial costs for those borrowed funds and getting nothing in return. The AO further observed that the assessee is diverting the funds to the subsidiary 5 I.T.A. No.553/Viz/2018 M/s GV…

Balaji Electrical Insulator Private Limited, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 73/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Daxini, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36

…nd assume the said role to decide how much is a reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377. On the other hand, Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the authority below. 4. Heard the representative of the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears from the record that during the appellant proceeding, the assessee made submissions before the Learned CIT(A) wherefrom it reveals that assessee’…

Express Airtronics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1402/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 बिाम/ Express Airotronics Pvt. Ito 2(1)(3), Mumbai Ltd., (Now Merged With Net Work Telelink Private Ltd.) V. B-14 Valmiki Apartments, Next To Bombay College Of Pharmacy, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai 400098 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace0826H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1402/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2015 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-4/It-14/Ito-2(1)(3)/2014-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.1402/Mum/2016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…he assessee company has sufficient own funds, interest disallowance could not be made, (Refer Paper Book Pg. No. 39-40). The Appellant would like to further rely on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Cement (p.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377. wherein it was held that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business, 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 decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumst…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6703/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 145(2)Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 9

…td (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 ITR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 10 (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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR

Section 153(1)Section 40

…td (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) 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) ITA 1015 & 1779/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 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 merel…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1015/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR

Section 153(1)Section 40

…td (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) 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) ITA 1015 & 1779/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 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 merel…

Woodward India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 916/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Woodward India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, (Formerly Known As Woodward Circle-18(1), Governor India Ltd.,), 12Th Floor, New Delhi. Vs Building No. 5, Dlf Cyber Terraces, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon-122002 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Shri S.S. Tomer, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudary, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2019

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudary, C.I.T. DR

Section 92Section 92C

…a particular expenditure needs to be incurred or not. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following decisions: • CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingir (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) • CIT vs. Walchand and Co (P) Ltd. (65 ITR 381)(SC) • CIT vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377)(Del) • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT and Anr. (289 ITR 26)(SC) • EKL Appliances Limited vs. CIT [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Del) 17 | P a g e 3.20 Lastly, the Ld AR drew our attention to the fact that similar royalty and technical payments have been accepted by the AO/TPO in subsequent years. In this regard, he relied on the below tabulation: AY TPO DRP…

M/S. Deepali Designs and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1827/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 36

…justification of incurring or not incurring any particular expenditure. So long as the expenditure incurred is for business purposes, the same is allowable as business deduction. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decision: " CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del.) " D & H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 149 ITR 400 (MP). 25 29. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 30. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee provided tickets of the opening ce…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1710/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 36

…justification of incurring or not incurring any particular expenditure. So long as the expenditure incurred is for business purposes, the same is allowable as business deduction. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decision: " CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del.) " D & H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT: 149 ITR 400 (MP). 25 29. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 30. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee provided tickets of the opening ce…

Shri Bharat Bhushan Gupta, HUF, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 568/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Bharat Bhushan Acit-5(1) Gupta, Huf बनाम/ 4, Honey Farm House, Near Indore Vs. Allahabad Bank, Nemawar Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaghb7561R Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Revenue By Shri R.S. Ambedkar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.03.2019

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Bharat Bhushan ACIT-5(1) Gupta, HUF बनाम/ 4, Honey Farm House, Near Indore Vs. Allahabad Bank, Nemawar Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AAGHB7561R Appellant by Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, CAs Revenue by Shri R.S. Ambedkar Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 13.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal by Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is…