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.

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 377)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Spice Communication Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 988/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nditure, some third party has benefited, cannot be a reason to disallow the expenditure. Instead of analyzing that judgment in detail, our purpose would be served by referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 / 121 Taxman 706 , wherein the judgment of Supreme Court in Sassoon case (supra) and some other judgments are taken note of, analysed and the principles laid down therein are succinctly culled out. Examining and interpreting the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the Court expressed that the true import of the expression "wholly or exclusively"…

Idea Cellular Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 801/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, C.R. Building, New Delhi Sector-64, Noida. Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011 [In Ita No. 988/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Spice Communication Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O- Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Tax, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Sector-64, Noida. C.R. Building, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aagcs6070H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Idea Cellular Ltd., A-68, Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), New Delhi Sector-64, Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ronak G. Doshi, Ca Department By Sh. B.K. Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2016 & C.O. No. 77/Del/2011

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nditure, some third party has benefited, cannot be a reason to disallow the expenditure. Instead of analyzing that judgment in detail, our purpose would be served by referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 / 121 Taxman 706 , wherein the judgment of Supreme Court in Sassoon case (supra) and some other judgments are taken note of, analysed and the principles laid down therein are succinctly culled out. Examining and interpreting the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the Court expressed that the true import of the expression "wholly or exclusively"…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 35

…CIT v. Birla Cotton 16 Strides Shasun Limited Strides Arcolab Limited Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82ITR 166 (SC)], etc.' 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…

M/S. Hotz Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (OSD), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 876/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI L.P. SAHU Assessment Year: 2008-09 Hotz Industries Ltd., vs. DCIT(OSD), 32-Hanuman Road, CIT-IV, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACH0092G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, FCA Department by: Shri Rajeev Ramka, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 03 .02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 29 :04.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds: 1. That the Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholdi…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…eventures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) • CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011(Del HC) • CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) • CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. (supra), (Del) It is respectfully submitted that as long as an item of expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the appellant, whether or not such expenditure actually benefits the appellant is an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of determination of ALP. Rel…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…recognized method of accounting of inventories: • 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) • IAC v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd.: 14 ITD 564 (Bom.) • Wipro Limited vs. DCIT: 96 TTJ 211(Bang.) • Samsung Electronics India Ltd. vs. JCIT (ITA No.3200 & 2344/Del/2000 & ITA No.3734/Del/2002) [Del ITAT] Reliance, is also placed on the following decision…

M/S. Chamical Sale Corp., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6009/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chamical Sale Corp., Vs. Ito, Dcm Building, 3Rd Floor, Ward-31(3), 16- Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaffc7156C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Rp Mall, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Raising The Issues Of Validity Of Disallowance Of Business Loss At Rs.2,49,593 Sustained By The Learned Cit(Appeals).

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, RP Mall, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)

…and partnership deed of Shri Suresh Goel, Shri Gautam Goel and Smt. Anuradha Goel for running the flower business. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Dhanraj Giri Raja - 91 ITR 544 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. - 254 ITR 377 (Del.); iii) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT - 37 ITR 151 (SC); 3. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with this submission that it is an established position of the law that onus always lies upon the claimant to establish the genuineness of its claim to which the present assessee has th…

Ingersoll Rand (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 272/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH “ B ” BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.272/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2004-05) M/s. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Plot No.35, KIADB Indl. Area, Income Tax, Bidadi, Bangalore – 562 109. Circle 11(4), Bangalore. PAN AAACI 3099Q Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate. Respondent By : Mrs. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 09.02.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by…

Cargill Financial Services Asia Pte Ltd.- in Liquidation, Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5260/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)

Section 2

…s being undertaken by an entity with any party unless there is something on record to prove otherwise. Reliance in this connection is placed on Supreme Court judgment of SA Builders v CIT 288 ITR 1 and Delhi High Court judgment of CIT v Dalmia Cements Pvt Ltd 254 ITR 377. Contention No.3: Para 13 of the Ld. DR's submission i.e. Arguments culled out from the DRP's order Contention on non-cooperation of the assessee in respect of submitting complete trail of documents and limited information available by the assessee: The Appellant had duly submitted all the vital documents pertaining to bill discounting vis a vis…

Cargill Tsf Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora CIT(DR)

Section 2

…s being undertaken by an entity with any party unless there is something on record to prove otherwise. Reliance in this connection is placed on Supreme Court judgment of SA Builders v CIT 288 ITR 1 and Delhi High Court judgment of CIT v Dalmia Cements Pvt Ltd 254 ITR 377. Contention No.3: Para 13 of the Ld. DR's submission i.e. Arguments culled out from the DRP's order Contention on non-cooperation of the assessee in respect of submitting complete trail of documents and limited information available by the assessee: The Appellant had duly submitted all the vital documents pertaining to bill discounting vis a vis…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.K. Sharma Contractor, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri L.M. Aggarwal, C.A

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

…M Francis & Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1970) 11 449 Kerela High Court (iv). Sh. Imran Ahmed vs. CIT (1982) Tax LR (NOC) III Alld. H.C. (v). M/s. Valtamp Transporter (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 105, 113, Guj. HC (vi). CIT vs. Dalmia Contract (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 Del. HC (vii). Hemraj Nebhomal & Sons vs. CIT(2005) 146 Taxman 345 MP HC (viii). S. Gurlal Singh Tuli vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 365 (ITAT Nagpur) (ix). ACIT vs. LMP Tractor(P) Ltd. (2005) 148 Taxman 52(Mag.) Ahd. ITAT (x). M/s. Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, 104 ITD 537 (Hyd. ITAT) He submitted that some creditors are old and transaction is c…

Virji Bharamal Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2996/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Ms. Lata Sunder

Section 36(1)(iii)

…sessee would ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:- “ We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner Income Tax vs Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd.(2002)254 ITR 377, that once it Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2008-09 is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business 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…

Virji Bharamal Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2995/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Ms. Lata Sunder

Section 36(1)(iii)

…sessee would ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:- “ We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner Income Tax vs Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd.(2002)254 ITR 377, that once it Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2008-09 is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1194/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…is merely based on the surmises of the AO. The said allegations of the AO is not backed with any cogent material, and therefore, is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following judgments:- - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court) - Calcutta High Court – Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519. - Apex Court decision in SA Builders vs. CIT {2006} 206 CTR (SC) 631; (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of above, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the same may…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A.K. Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1143/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…is merely based on the surmises of the AO. The said allegations of the AO is not backed with any cogent material, and therefore, is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following judgments:- - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court) - Calcutta High Court – Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519. - Apex Court decision in SA Builders vs. CIT {2006} 206 CTR (SC) 631; (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of above, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the same may…