CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

…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…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd 254 ITR 377 (Del). On the reasonability of the payment, the ld AR argued that value as per registered valuer’s report by the assessee was Rs.1,25,72,94,500/- whereas as per DVO it was Rs.1,23,90,08,000/- which was almost same and there was not much difference and therefore reasonability of the same cannot be questioned. 5.5. Per contra, the ld.DR while stro…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd 254 ITR 377 (Del). On the reasonability of the payment, the ld AR argued that value as per registered valuer’s report by the assessee was Rs.1,25,72,94,500/- whereas as per DVO it was Rs.1,23,90,08,000/- which was almost same and there was not much difference and therefore reasonability of the same cannot be questioned. 5.5. Per contra, the ld.DR while stro…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd 254 ITR 377 (Del). On the reasonability of the payment, the ld AR argued that value as per registered valuer’s report by the assessee was Rs.1,25,72,94,500/- whereas as per DVO it was Rs.1,23,90,08,000/- which was almost same and there was not much difference and therefore reasonability of the same cannot be questioned. 5.5. Per contra, the ld.DR while stro…

Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

…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…