CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji

91 ITR 544Supreme Court of India1973#643 most cited

What is CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji authority for?

The revenue cannot question the commercial expediency or wisdom of an expenditure incurred by a businessman, as the businessman is the best judge of their own business interests. The department's role is limited to verifying if the expenditure was genuinely incurred and was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

154

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji · 91 ITR 544 · Section 37(1) · commercial expediency · business expediency · revenue dictating business affairs · expenditure wholly and exclusively for business · allowability of business expenditure · genuineness of expenditure · Section 40A(2)(b) · Income-tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 195Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 10(2)(xv)section 5(2)section 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)section 41(1)commercial expediencybusiness expediencysundry creditorssection 41section 40asection 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2398/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09
Section 144Section 145(3)

…particular liability had ceased to exist or not. The Revenue cannot step into shoes of the businessman. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, the ground No. (iii) raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 26. In the result appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 27. Both the parties before us stated that no appeal has been preferred by…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2397/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08
Section 144Section 145(3)

…particular liability had ceased to exist or not. The Revenue cannot step into shoes of the businessman. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, the ground No. (iii) raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 26. In the result appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 27. Both the parties before us stated that no appeal has been preferred by…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2396/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 144Section 145(3)

…particular liability had ceased to exist or not. The Revenue cannot step into shoes of the businessman. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, the ground No. (iii) raised by the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 26. In the result appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2010-11 is dismissed. 27. Both the parties before us stated that no appeal has been preferred by…

ITO Ward - 2(2), New Delhi vs. All Check Deals India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2923/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaito, Vs. All Check Deals India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-2(2). 94, Meghdoot Building, Gf- New Delhi 12A, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sharat Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 94C

…the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. The appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malyalam Plantation Ltd. 53 ITR 140, Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207, CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, 94 ITR 544 (SC), Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 64 ITR 568 (Calcutta), CIT Vs. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd., 26 taxmann.com 133 (Delhi) in support of its contention that expenses incurred for the purposes of business has to be allowed. These judgments supports the argument of the appellant wherein it is held that expenditure incurred for carr…

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

…der for AY 2004-05 wherein following observation is made:- “We have considered rival contentions and found that expenditure has been incurred under the commercial expediency. Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Dhanarajgirji Raja Narsingirji (91 ITR 544), Panipat Woolen and general Mills (103 ITR 66), Eastern Investments (20 ITR 1) and the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Dinshaw (F.E) Ltd. (36 ITR 114), we do not find any merit for disallowance of expenditure incurred on purchase of catalogues and broachers, which were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Accordingly, AO i…

M/S Well Wisher Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1912/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…AO cannot step into the shoes of the businessman and decide whether the foreign trips were required or not. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingarji reported in 91 ITR 544(SC) wherein it was held as under:- Now, coming to the questions referred, it was urged by Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel for the revenue, that an expenditure incurred in connection with a criminal case cannot be considered as an expenditure coming within the scope of section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. He contended that an expenditure incurred in connectio…

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT(TP)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/s.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-tax, Circle 3(1)(1) v. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. PAN : AABCN9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date of Hearing : 23.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal…

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

…t the assessee has incurred expenditure on samples on commercial considerations and hence the same should be allowed. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973)(94 ITR 544), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "It is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. Every businessman knows his interest best. So far as the apportionment is concerned we are not told why we should not consider the same as a re…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2442/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…(P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017]…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2444/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…(P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017]…

Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai

ITA 2443/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2442, 2443 & 2444/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kalaignar Tv Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of “Anna Arivalayam”, 367/369, Anna Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Non Corporate Circle 20(1), [Pan:Aadck0898E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, All Dated 30.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issue Has Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. In The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 37Section 37(1)

…(P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Del) 7. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [19681 67 ITR 361 (Pat) 9 I.T.A. Nos.2442 to 2444/Chny/18 8. CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166(SC) 9. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC) 10. CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron & Steel Reg. Stock-Holders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Gui) 11. Parshva Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 631 (Cal) 12. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 18 (P&H) 13. Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 230 (Guj) 14. Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT [2017]…

ACIT, Circle-4, Patna vs. M/S Prakash Construction, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 137/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Partly Succeeded.

Section 143(2)Section 250

…2013-14 M/s. Prakash Construction Patna Page 4 being brought on record or without any specific defect being pointed out is not justified. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Dhanraj Giri Nara Singirji (1973) 91 ITR 544, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaipur Electro Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1996) 134 CTR, Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow in the case of Kanha Vanaspati Ltd. Vs Joint CIT, Range-IT (2006) (7) MTC 339. The wholesale disallowance of 10% as given above out of the expenses without mentioning any specific instances is not tenable especially when the assessment…

Mega Custodial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 633/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mega Custodial Services Limited V. Dcit – Circle-10(2)(2) 301, Level-3, Ceejay House Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate, F-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaacm3508J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Navneet Chaudhary Department By : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Navneet ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…mmercial expediency is to be viewed from the point of view of businessman and not from the point of view of the revenue. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544 (SC). Once it is proved and accepted that the lending is part of business activities of the assessee company and once there is no finding recorded by the lower authorities that the borrowed funds were diverted for nonbusiness purposes, there cannot be any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on a proportionate basis. Accordingly, the…

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

…t the assessee has incurred expenditure on samples on commercial considerations and hence the same should be allowed. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973)(94 ITR 544), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "It is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. Every businessman knows his interest best. So far as the apportionment is concerned we are not told why we should not consider the same as a re…

Highgrace Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 635/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…(Cal)). It is for the assessee to decide how best to protect its own interest. It is not open to AO to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure (CIT Vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiri (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC)). Expression "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It mean everything that serves to promote commerce and includes every means suitable to that end. In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditu…

Highgrace Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 634/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…(Cal)). It is for the assessee to decide how best to protect its own interest. It is not open to AO to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure (CIT Vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiri (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC)). Expression "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It mean everything that serves to promote commerce and includes every means suitable to that end. In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditu…

Elem Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 624/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…(Cal)). It is for the assessee to decide how best to protect its own interest. It is not open to AO to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure (CIT Vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiri (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC)). Expression "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It mean everything that serves to promote commerce and includes every means suitable to that end. In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditu…

Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5846/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5846/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 7, Khullar Farm, Mandi Road, Circle-16(2), Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm9420A Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Khanna, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR

…flow for paying of the loan on taking the loan from director. No cogent evidence has been submitted as to how the loan taken as well as the loan given was for business purposes. 13. The assessee relied on the case of CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasinghgirji 91 ITR 544 (SC) wherein it was held that the department cannot prescribe what the expenditure assessee should incur. In the instant involves the issue whether the expenditure incurred was for business purpose or not, which has not been proved by the assessee. The decision of the Hon’ble High court in the case of Dalmia Cement 254 ITR 377 dealing with the iss…

M/S Majestic Infracon P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3711/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3710 & 3711/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Majestic Infracon ACIT 12(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.147B, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, D.B. House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. General A.K. Vaidya M.K. Road, Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 PAN: AAACT4160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022…

M/S Majestic Infracon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 12(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3710/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3710 & 3711/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Majestic Infracon ACIT 12(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.147B, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, D.B. House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. General A.K. Vaidya M.K. Road, Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 PAN: AAACT4160F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Ajaykumar Sharma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022…