How many judgments cite CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji?

154 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 195, Section 40A(2)(b), Section 68.

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 1961 Section 195 Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68 Section 14A Section 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 expediency business expediency sundry creditors section 41 section 40a section 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji

M/S Aricia Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 29(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3333/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…has been pointed out which does not relate to the business of the appellant, Merely expenses are not verifiable cannot be a ground for disallowance or additions. Further it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. DhanrajgiriNarain Singh Girji 91 ITR 544 that 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 Ad hoc addition without pointing out nature of discrepancies is not proper. The addition made by Learned Assessing officer has been made in a most arbitra…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 68

…e and sale transactions of shares and the timing together with the pricing thereon. Reliance in this regard is placed has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji reported in 91 ITR 544 (SC). 7.2. We find that the ld AR pleaded that in an online platform, there would be no nexus between the purchasers and the seller and the delivery of shares and payments would be made through their respective stock brokers. Hence the ld AO ought to have summoned the assessee’s brokers to examine the authenticity of the sale of shares of SRK Ind…

Dy CIT Circle- 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Apurva Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 587/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul B. Jain

…om the point of view of the Revenue. It is also well settled that every businessmen knows his interest best. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC). It is not in dispute that the said sum of Rs.3 crores had indeed become bad for the assessee inasmuch as the non realization of the same had happened due to non compliance of the mandated terms and conditions of the Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Apurva Developers Private Limited MOU by the assessee, hence, there was absolutely no scope for the assessee t…

Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 119/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manish Borad ()

…he TPO without following any prescribed method is illegal and unsustainable. Thus, he submitted, DRPs directions should be upheld. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji ITA 91 ITR 544 (SC) 2. CIT v. Lever India Exports Limited ITA No. 1306/2014, 1307/2014 & 1349/2014 (Bombay High Court) 3. CIT v. Lever India Exports Limited ITA No. 1306/2014, 1307/2014 & 1349/2014 (Bombay High Court 4. CIT v. Merck Ltd ITA 272/2014 (Bombay High Court) 5. Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU vs SI Group India Limited ITA 447/2017 (Bombay High Court} 6…

DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2357/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Manish Borad ()

M/S. Nike India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2809/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2809/Bang/2017 Assessmentyear:2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.2809/Bang/2017 Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2809/Bang/2017 AssessmentYear:2013-14 Nike India Private Limited Ground & 1st Floor Olympia Building No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Park ACIT, Circle 5(1)(1) Vs. CV Raman Nagar Bengaluru Bangalore 560 093 PAN NO :AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2021 O R D E R…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…uthority is estopped from stepping into the shoes of any assessee so as to question its rationality, prudence or acceptability from a common sense point of view [S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (S.C); CIT Vs. Dhanraj Girji Raja Narasingherji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC); CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)]}. 14.1 So long as the transaction meets the specific conditions laid down in the Act, an attempt to negate it or interpret it by applying the yardsticks of rationality, prudence etc., which in any case is highly subjective, would not meet the ends of justice and basic tenets of judicial interp…

M/S Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 3321/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…IT(TP)A Nos.330/Bang/2015, 804/Bang/2016 356/Bang/2017, 739/Bang/2017 & 3321/Bang/2018 M/s. Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.330/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Nike India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of No.701, The Millenia, Tower-B Income-tax Murphy Road, Ulsoor Circle-5(1)(2) Vs. Bangalore-560 008 Bangalore PAN NO : AABCN9612K APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A No. 804/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nike India Private Limited…

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Landis+Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2298/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akash Patel, CA

Section 143(3)

…ng benefited from the services rendered and also it is he who knows to what extent the benefit ensures to him. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji, reported in 91 ITR 544 (SC), wherein it was held that "it is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur the expenditure. Every businessman knows his interest best." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Eastern Investments Limited vs. CIT reported in 20…

ITO, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2163/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA

Section 133Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2163/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata Vs. M/s Height Insurance Services Ltd. Kamalalaya Centre, 156A, Lenin Sarani, Room-319, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCH 0943 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT Respondent by : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 31/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The captioned appeal fil…

Shri Vivek Talwar, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC - 46, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5003/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan (DR)

Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…r. Directorate. The fee was paid through cheque. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained the purpose for payment of fees to Advocate. In support of his contention, the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narsinghraiji (91 ITR 544) & Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (90 ITR 201). The Assessing Officer without discussing the facts of those case held that facts are identical and disallowed the entire expenses in restoration proceeding, the assessment order was passed in a hurriedly manner. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire/expenses. No fair and property opportunity…

R. Raheja Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4701/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4701/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala &For Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM& SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4701/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT 13(3)(1), M/s R. Raheja Properties Room No.229, 2ndfloor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1st floor, Rahejas, Corner बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 of Main Avenu & VP Vs. Road, Santacruz (w), Mumbai-400 054 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACG3913H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala & Shri Vinay Sinha, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR सु…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Cytespace Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…air of the businessman and assume the said role to decide how much is a reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. 1.20 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: • CIT v Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544) (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “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.” Thus, whether or not a particular expenditure has to be incurred, depends on the perception of the bus…

Shri Sucha Singh Rai, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 239/Rpr/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Laskar, JCIT

Section 37

…e way in which business has to be conducted and it is the prerogative of such businessman and Revenue cannot direct the assessee as to how the business has to be done. 14. In the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it was for the assessee to decide how best to protect his own interest. It is not open to the Department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. Further, in the case of the J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax…

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 10(38)Section 68

Mega Custodial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6270/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Mega Custodial Services Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 8(2)(3),Mumbai 301, Level-3, Ceejay House F-Block, Shiv Sagar Estate Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3508J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…m 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 9 M/s. Mega Custodial Services Ltd., 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 non- business purposes, there cannot be any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on a proportionate basis. Accordingly, t…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…business, the Supreme Court laid down that the reasonableness of the expenditure 73 has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. 15.14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dharamraj Giriji Riya Narsingiriji 91 ITR 544 held that "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 its interest best". 15.15. It is well settled that the assessing officer cannot place himself in the arm chair of businessman and decide the amount of expenditure tha…