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.

Ila Sanat Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2506/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders (supra). It is relevant here to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case – 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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar vs. M/S Max India Ltd

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

ITA/272/2022HC Punjab & Haryana19 Oct 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

…o be examined from the view of the prudent businessman and not from the view point of the revenue. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “36. 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…

Raj Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2018 sustained the disallowance to the extent of Rs.24,96,935/- made by the AO on account of expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT(A) Civil appeal No. 5811 of 2006 with 5812 of 2006, wherein it was held as under:- "35. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in ClT vs. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. [2002J 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 Page 5 of 7 Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT 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 an…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni, Katni vs. J.P Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…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 12 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Katni, Katni vs. J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd, Damoh

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…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 12 | P a g e ITA No.93 & 94-Jab-2023 ACIT vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.L td. business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the…

DCIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi vs. Uk India Business Council India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3249/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: filing of return replying on the judgment of jurisdiction High Court given in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL. Ltd. without appreciating the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Unifac Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cooperation Circle- 3(2), WP No. 5264 of 2018 (Madras), CIT-2, vs. Gujrat State Road Transport Cooperation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) and CTT vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 280 CTR 381 (Kerala) and CBDT's Circular No. 22/2

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…cial prudence has not found favour of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (S.C) held 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…

Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circe-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.390/Bang/2021 Assessment year : 2009-10 Continental Automotive Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Components India Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Circle 2(1)(1), Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 099. PAN: AAKCS 9578C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 26.07.2023 Date o…

Jagson International Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 902/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is the reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved of the view taken by Delhi High Court in Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd. ( 254 ITR 377 ) and disapproved of the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Abhishek Industries ( 286 ITR ). Incidentally in the case of Hero Cycles, t was found that the interest liability of the assessee towards the bank on borrowings made had no bearings on the issue as otherwise, the assessee had sufficient funds of its own to advance the fu…

JCIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1303/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SaxenaFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 407

…board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is the reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved of the view taken by Delhi High Court in Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd. ( 254 ITR 377 ) and disapproved of the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Abhishek Industries ( 286 ITR ). Incidentally in the case of Hero Cycles, t was found that the interest liability of the assessee towards the bank on borrowings made had no bearings on the issue as otherwise, the assessee had sufficient funds of its own to advance the fu…

Shri Gamdoor Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (5), Mansa

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

ITA 149/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gamdoor Singh V. Income Tax Officer, Near Atta Chakki, Ward-1(5), Mansa Vill. Talabwala VPO Boha The Budhlada, Mansa 151 503 [PAN: GXIPS 1950Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.K. Singla, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Prashant Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against…

Lalita Kumari, Anta District Baran vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…o decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profits." 16. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT us. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) has 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 12 Lalita Kumari vs. CIT(A) assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure havin…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…at the impugned transaction is legally valid and permissible under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income tax authorities cannot compel a businessman to maximise his profits. The income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…at the impugned transaction is legally valid and permissible under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income tax authorities cannot compel a businessman to maximise his profits. The income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee…

Rain Cements Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Advocate Prathishta Singh &For Respondent: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

…ITA No 864 of 2017 Rain Cements Ltd Hyderabad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner of (Formerly known as Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) CII Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AABCR8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue by: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 20/03/2023 Date of pronouncement: 31/05/2023 ORDER Per R.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…urse of assessment relating to the said matter. iii) The payment of brokerage is a policy decision and the understanding between the company and broker and cannot be question by the revenue. [Reference CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri 91 ITR 445 (SC) and CIT Vs Dalmia Vs 254 ITR 377 (SC)]. ITA Nos. 2663, 2664 & 2665/Del/2014 28 BPTP Ltd. F. Observations in para 2.9, suffer from subjectivity, are of general nature, made without pointing out any specific material, and suffer from factually erroneous assumptions on facts and in law. PARA 2.9 (I), (II), (III) & (IV) OF AO’s ORDER The observations in aforesaid clauses are bei…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…urse of assessment relating to the said matter. iii) The payment of brokerage is a policy decision and the understanding between the company and broker and cannot be question by the revenue. [Reference CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri 91 ITR 445 (SC) and CIT Vs Dalmia Vs 254 ITR 377 (SC)]. ITA Nos. 2663, 2664 & 2665/Del/2014 28 BPTP Ltd. F. Observations in para 2.9, suffer from subjectivity, are of general nature, made without pointing out any specific material, and suffer from factually erroneous assumptions on facts and in law. PARA 2.9 (I), (II), (III) & (IV) OF AO’s ORDER The observations in aforesaid clauses are bei…

M/S. Ecoplast Ltd., Valsad vs. Asst. Cmmissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Renge, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/SRT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.545/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Ecoplast Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, S No.309, National Highway No.8, Valsad. Water Works Cross Road, Abrama, Valsad – 396002. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace5030H

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

…iary company. For that reliance can be place on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA builder Ltd. Vs CIT, 158 Taxman 74, Delhi High Court. Other decisions referred by the assessee on this issue were: In the case of CIT Vs Dalmia cement Ltd. 254 ITR 377, and in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340. Thus, we note that above facts and decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of SA builder Ltd. Vs CIT, 158 Taxman 74, have not been considered by the Tribunal ( in assessee`s own case) in right perspective. Who can help the wholly owned subsidiary in needy hours? This…

M/S. C. J. Group & Gajras Builders & Developers, Panvel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ion. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-3.2 to 5.2.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the written submission, the assessee relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts e.g. in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377(Del), in the case of Shahzada Nand & Sons vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 358 (SC); in the case of J.K. Steel Industries vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 285 (Cal); in the case of CIT vs. Keshavlal Chandulal (1966) 59 ITR 120 (Guj). On the basis of ratio of aforesaid decisions, the assessee submitted that the transaction of payment of commission is bona fide and ge…

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…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…

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

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7131/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. AT&T Communication Vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Services (India) Ltd., Vatika New Delhi. Triangle, 3rd Floor, Sushant Lok-I, Block A, Gurgaon- 122002 PAN :AACCA8033E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rishabh Malhotra, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT-DR Date of hearing 19.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 26 .12.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against final assessment order dated 26.…