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 367,154 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.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Vijayapur vs. M/S Sadashiv Sugars Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1092/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 37(1)

…decisions: Page 4 of 5 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DT Vs. S. A. Builders Limited 288 ITR 1. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court also agreed with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd 254 ITR 377. 2. The Apex Court in the case of Cit Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody, Calcutta ETC. 8.3 Assessee had incurred the expenditure for the purpose of business. It was paid to unrelated party. TDS provisions were also complied to. A.O has not made out any case with evidence to show that expenditure is not incurred, nor A.0 brought any evidence on record to…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Riddhi Steel & Tube Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 909/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Cir.5 Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccr 0175 J "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir.5 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69B

…gh Court had an occasion to examine aspect of commercial expediency considered by a businessman while incurring any expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made the following observations on this aspect in the decision of the CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd., 254 ITR 377. “An expenditure to which one cannot apply an empirical or subjective standard is to be judged from the point of view of a businessman and it is relevant to consider how the businessman himself treats a particular item of expenditure. The term "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It means everything that serves to promote commerce and in…

Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 638/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Cir.5 Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccr 0175 J "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir.5 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69B

…gh Court had an occasion to examine aspect of commercial expediency considered by a businessman while incurring any expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made the following observations on this aspect in the decision of the CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd., 254 ITR 377. “An expenditure to which one cannot apply an empirical or subjective standard is to be judged from the point of view of a businessman and it is relevant to consider how the businessman himself treats a particular item of expenditure. The term "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It means everything that serves to promote commerce and in…

Sharma Cars Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-8, Now Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1655/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1655/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharma Cars P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.8 “Kayakalp”, N.H. No.8 Vs Ahmedabad. Naroda, Ahmedabad 382330. Pan: Aadcs 0305 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri T.P. Hemani & Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, and Shri P.B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…gh Court had an occasion to examine aspect of commercial expediency considered by a businessman while incurring any expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has made the following observations on this aspect in the decision of the CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd., 254 ITR 377. “An expenditure to which one cannot apply an empirical or subjective standard is to be judged from the point of view of a businessman and it is relevant to consider how the businessman himself treats a particular item of expenditure. The term "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It means everything that serves to promote commerce and in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit. Kindly see Travencore Titanium Product Ltd. vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 277 AT 282-83(SC) CIT vs Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (1965)56 ITR 52(SC) g) In the present case, all the expenses has been incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Even Assessing Officer has not observed as to which expenditure is not for the purposes of business. Merely a guess work in the guise of prev…

Shri Shri Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Raipur vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 325/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G.S. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 69

…e customers and no inquiry has been made by the Revenue authorities from the transporter or from the customers to verify the genuineness of transportation. We further find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) has held that the reasonableness of expenditure for the purpose of business has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not the Revenue. It has further held that 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 a…

Cosmos Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…nies may be in different lines of business, still it makes no difference. He drew our attention to paras 34 and 35 of the said order which read as under:- “34. 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. Amserve Consultants Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3062/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3062/Del./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/s. Amserve Consultants Ltd., vs. ADIT, Circle 2 (1), 1st Floor, Elegance Tower, Plot No.8, International Taxation, Non Hierarchical Commercial Centre, New Delhi. Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025. (PAN : AAACM2303F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.10.2018 Date of Order : 29.10.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEM…

Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2427/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2014-15 Tupelo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 296, Forest Lane, Circle 25(2), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110066 (Pan: Aaect3335J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Department By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ern as a measure of commercial expediency? The law laid down 10 Assessment year 2014-15 by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 215 ITR 582 was overruled whereas that of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 was approved. It was further held that it all depends on the facts and circumstance of the case as to whether the directors of the sister concern utilized the amount advanced to it by the assessee for their personal benefit, which obviously could not be said to be an advance as a measure of commercial expediency.” 5.2 In such circumstances, in o…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 143(3)

…Act have been accepted in the following cases: - K. Mohammed Adam Sahib v. CIT: 56 ITR 360 (Mad.) - India Motor Parts and Accessories (P) Ltd v. CIT: 60 ITR 531 (Mad.) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd: 215 ITR 441 (Del.) - CIT v Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd.: 44 ITR 22 (Del.) - CIT vs. Bharat Commerce & Industries Limited : 240 ITR 256 (Del HC) The Madras High Court in the case of K. Mohammad Adam Sahib v. CIT: 56 ITR 360, while reiterating the principle that the assessee has a right to value his closing stock at cost price or market price whichever is lower, held that where the goods are saleable only in certain…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David & Co. P Ltd Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) 86-94 16 S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 95-100 20 CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan Vs CIT 155 ITR 609 (Raj) 201-206 32 DN Sinha Vs. CIT 102 ITR 491 (Cal) 207-211 45 Asis Power Projects Vs. DCIT 370 ITR 256 (Kar) 273-277 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No. 48 CIT Vs. Champa Pro…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David & Co. P Ltd Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC) 86-94 16 S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) 95-100 20 CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) 116-120 21 CIT Vs. Devayhi Beverages Ltd 296 ITR 41 (Del) 121-122 31 Kashiram Radhakishan Vs CIT 155 ITR 609 (Raj) 201-206 32 DN Sinha Vs. CIT 102 ITR 491 (Cal) 207-211 45 Asis Power Projects Vs. DCIT 370 ITR 256 (Kar) 273-277 Sl.No CASE LAWS ON DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLES Page No. 48 CIT Vs. Champa Pro…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3125/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…ot correct. 33. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 215ITR 585 also does not appear to be correct. 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 much is r…

M/S. Menora Developers & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2716/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Menora Developers & Ward-16(4), Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 304, Cr Building, A-60, Naraina Industrial Ip Estate, New Delhi Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Menora Developers & Vs. Ito, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ward-16(4), A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, Room No. 304, Cr Building, New Delhi Ip Estate, New Delhi Pan: Aafcm9587Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

…ot correct. 33. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 215ITR 585 also does not appear to be correct. 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 much is r…

M/S. Eaton Power Quality Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1373/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…Tribunals have consistently have consistently held that the Revenue cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee:  SA Builders Ltd vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Walchand & Co Ltd [1967]65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs B. Dalmia Cement Ltd [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del)  CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC)  CIT vs Oracle India (P) Ltd [2011] 199 TAXMAN 181 (Delhi)  Hive Communication Private Ltd vs CIT [2013]353 ITR 200 (Del) 4.13 It may also be pointed out that recently the CBDT vide notification G.S.R. 557(E) dated 7th June, 2017, has notified the Safe Harbour Rules, inter alia…

M/S Eaton Power Quality P.Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 119/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)

…Tribunals have consistently have consistently held that the Revenue cannot question the commercial expediency of the assessee:  SA Builders Ltd vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Walchand & Co Ltd [1967]65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT vs B. Dalmia Cement Ltd [2002] 254 ITR 377 (Del)  CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC)  CIT vs Oracle India (P) Ltd [2011] 199 TAXMAN 181 (Delhi)  Hive Communication Private Ltd vs CIT [2013]353 ITR 200 (Del) 4.13 It may also be pointed out that recently the CBDT vide notification G.S.R. 557(E) dated 7th June, 2017, has notified the Safe Harbour Rules, inter alia…

Impact Metalas Limited, Medak Dist., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 338/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Impact Metals Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Medak Tax, Circle 2(1) Pan: Aaaci4546A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 143(1)Section 22Section 24Section 68

…ch consumers. The assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd vs. CIT (A) & Anr (S.C) 288 ITR 001 (S.C) and also the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmiya Cements Ltd reported in (2005) 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 (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 rol…

Lars Medicare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10Section 115J

…d, to carry on such huge volume of business, the assessee has to necessarily expenditure and entertain it business associates and, hence expenditure so incurred is eligible business expenditure. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 254 ITR 377 (Del) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement ii) 288 ITR 1 (SC) S.A. Builiders Ltd. vs. CIT “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 established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not nec…

Shri Amit Ashokraj Kapoor, Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 212/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Albinus Tirkey, Sr. D.R
Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 212/AHD/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Amit Ashokraj V/S Asst. Commissioner of Kapoor 3-A, Jaihind Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Society, Nr. Rambaug, Ahmedabad Road, Maninagar, Ahmedabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGMPK7410N Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mittal, AR Respondent by : Shri Albinus Tirkey, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 01 -08-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13 -08-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the…

Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6174/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharma Productions Acit-16(1), Private Limited, Room No.439, बनाम/ Unit No.201 & 202, 2Nd 4Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Supreme Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Off Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-40020 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacd3889K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Rakesh Mohan Shri Ram Tiwari-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/06/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2018 2 M/S Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)

…er dated 10/11/2014. Our view find support from the decision and the ratio laid down therein S.A. Builders vs CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74 (Supreme Court), and various decision discussed in the case of S.A. Builders, including the decision from Hon'ble (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del.), wherein it was 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 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…