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 366,470 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.

Manglayatan Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly

ITA 5527/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-04, A-86, Gali No. 9, New Delhi Chander Vihar, Mandawali, New Delhi (Pan: Aaicm3804H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prateek Mittal, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ssion" used in section 36(1)(iii). This decision overruled the Bombay High Court decisions in the case of Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 989 and 215 ITR 582, and approved the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377. Subsequent to this decision of the Apex Court, the Dept. filed an SLP against the Delhi High Court's decision in Addl. CIT vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 482 wherein the High Court had held that the interest liability on loans borrowed to acquire the equity capital of a subsidiary company which was in the same line of business wa…

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…vs. ITO necessity or expediency of a business decision, provided the expenditure is incurred for business purposes and is not found to be bogus or fictitious. “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…

Add Advisors Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal

ITA 854/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Add Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Res-Cowork 03, 5Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Delhi International Airport, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 69Section 69C

…ITA Nos.822 & 854/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Deputy Commissioner of ADD ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Res-Cowork 03, 5th Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1(1), Room No.153A, Caddie Commercial Tower, Aerocity, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAICA3938N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम ADD ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Deputy Commissioner of Res-Cowork 03, 5th F…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Mass Communication Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 3130/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ions for the proposition that the AO could not step into the shoes of the businessman to determine the reasonableness of the expenditure:  SA. Builders lid vs CTT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. CIT: 379 ITR 347 (SC)  CIT vs Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del HC) 6.2 To justify the payment of Rs.60 Crores to Lahiri during the relevant year, our attention was drawn to the fact that the said rights were Sahara One Media & Entertainment. Ltd. subsequently sold for a sum of Rs.65 Crores in the FY 2004-05 to SITV Network Mumbai and the same had been offered to tax (Clause (b) at Pg. 41 of the CTT(A)…

DCIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Hebe Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2455/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…that it may not have added anything much to the public offers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S A Builders Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC)held that "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 HEBE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 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…

ITO Ward - 7(2), New Delhi vs. Dks Sales (P) Limited, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 9887/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. M/S. Dks Sales (P) Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), A-24, A-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaecd4730F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ay 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 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 4 | P a g e 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pgf Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 4591/DEL/2009[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 1998-99 Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. Pgf Ltd., New Delhi Sco 1042-43, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh Pan No. Aabcp2805N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 57

…ed on the report of the Special Auditor. The perusal of the details filed shows that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. MIS Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 377 as relied by the Ld. CIT(A), has observed that one cannot apply an empirical or subjective standard to the business expenditure. This has to be judged from the point of view of a businessman. In our view, considering the evidence on record, the addition made by the A.O. is, rightly deleted by the CIT(A). 15 Assessment Year: 1988-99 12. In the b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parshwanath Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 4676/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit – 4(3)(1) Vs. Parshwanath Jewellers 649, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt Ltd Mk Road – 400020. B-04/3,4,5 Devkaran Mansion Bldg, No. 2,63 Princes Street, Kalbadevi Ho – 400002 Pan/Gir No. Aadcp3202B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…to tax. Thus in our view, it is prerogative of the assessee to conduct his affairs with his own wisdom and businessmen acumen. On this preposition we drawn strength from the decision in the case of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) 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 (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 t…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

Kandla Export Corporation, Gandhidham vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

…re may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 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…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…ilarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. 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…

M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 383/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…e in relevant previous year reads a figure of Rs.40,10,60,348/-. We notice in this factual backdrop that a co-ordinate bench has followed various judicial precedents CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics (2013) 354 ITR 222 (Guj), CIT vs. Dalmia Cements Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), S A Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) to delete identical disallowance(s) in assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has upheld the same in Tax Appeal no. 39/2015 decided on 23.01.2015. The Revenue fails to dispute all the above facts as well as legal developments. We therefore conclude that both th…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 345/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…e in relevant previous year reads a figure of Rs.40,10,60,348/-. We notice in this factual backdrop that a co-ordinate bench has followed various judicial precedents CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics (2013) 354 ITR 222 (Guj), CIT vs. Dalmia Cements Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi), S A Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) to delete identical disallowance(s) in assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has upheld the same in Tax Appeal no. 39/2015 decided on 23.01.2015. The Revenue fails to dispute all the above facts as well as legal developments. We therefore conclude that both th…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…larly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. 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…

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, Vile Parle Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai Maharashtra

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…larly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. 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…

Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamat Hotels India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…larly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. 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…