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.

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 544)

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…e 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. The ratio laid down in CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) supports our view. In that case His Lordship observed: “It is true that in some of the cases this court has held that an expenditure incurred by an accused assessee to defend himself against a criminal charge did not fall within the scope of section 1O(2)(xv)*. Those decisions were rendered on the facts of those cases. That is not the posit…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…ervations 2.17 made by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja 61 | P a g e AT & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt Ltd V DCIT ITA No 2538/Del/2014 (A) & ITA NO 2518/Del/2014 (D) A Y 2009-10 Narasingirji (91 ITR 544)(Refer Page no. 114 of the Case Law Compendium) Further, the reliance can be placed upon the recently 2.18 pronounced decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cushman and Wakefield (India) Pvt Ltd. (ITA 475/ 2012), wherein, it was held that the authority of the TPO is to conduct a TP analysis to determine the ALP and not to…

Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Rajgangpur vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 442/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.442/Ctk/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Main Road, Rajgangpur- 770017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 9701 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pawan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Sumbalpur, Dated 05.09.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0040/14-15 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is That If Someone Is Showing Expenses Than Other Person Should Reflect The Same As Receipts In Its Books Of Account. "Ginni Refractories Pvt Ltd Shows Sorting & Chipping Expenses Of Rs 3,942,306/-In Its Books Of Account To M/S Anand Traders & M/S Anand Traders Has Also Filed Its Income Tax Return Reflecting The Same Receipts In Its Books Of Accounts. Hence Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is Complied." 2. There Are Two Kinds Of Provisions Under The Act, - One In Respect Of What Is Allowable & Other In Respect Of What Is Not Allowable, I.E., They Override The Provisions. As Discussed Also From Time-To-Time, Overriding Provisions Should First Be Applied & Then Only One Can Decide The Allow Ability Of Expenditure. If Any Expenditure Is Not Allowable Due To Any Provisions, Then That Expenditure Should Not Be Allowed. These Are Specific & General Provisions Which Do Not Allow

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

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

…hibited, then alone the allowability may be considered. In our view Sorting & Chipping expenses is not expressly prohibited under any other provision of the Income tax Act. 3. 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". 4. Both CIT Appeals and A.O has erred in law by disallowing the Sorting & Chipping expenses of Rs. 3,942,306/-. Both CIT Appeals and A.O has disal…

ACIT, Circle-33, Kolkata vs. Goutam Paul, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 1748/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 41Section 68

…re, a lesser amount than the amount expended cannot be allowed merely because the assessing authority thinks that the assessee could have managed by paying a lesser amount as a prudent businessman." In the case of CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC), it was ruled that – “lt 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." Going by both facts and law, I find that the additions made by the AO under the four heads of expenditure as discussed (supra), t…

M/S. Murugappa Management Services Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2992/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2992/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Murugappa Management Services The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, C/O. M/S. Subbaraya Aiyar, Corporate Circle 4(1), Padmanabhan & Ramamani, Chennai – 600 034. Advocates, New No.75 (Old No.105), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. Pan: Aaact1164F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.B. Nischal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.B. Nischal, JCIT

…ngaged all the 3 persons and paid consultancy charges in providing consultancy and advice to all the group companies. The Ld. counsel for the assessee had placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 and also judgment of Madras High Court in CIT vs. Nagesh Cine Enterprises (1998) 150 CTR 435. The Ld. counsel also placed his reliance in CIT vs. Walchand & Co Ltd, 65 ITR 381. 4. Referring to the judgments referred by the CIT(Appeals), the LD. counsel submitted that they did not apply to the facts of the case. 5. Referring to page A8 of the pap…

The DCIT, 1(1), Ujjain vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, Dewas

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

ITA 410/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 68

…DCIT vs. Smt. Namita ITA Nos.297 & 410/IND/2013 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 297/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1) :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Ujjain Vs Smt. Namita Patwa Dewas :: ""यथ"/Respondent PAN – AJAPP1214C CO No. 77/Ind/2013 Arising out of ITA No. 297/Ind/2013 Smt. Namita Patwa Dewas :: Objector Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1, Ujjain :: Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 410/Ind…

The DCIT, 1(1), Ujjain vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, Dewas

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

ITA 297/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 68

…DCIT vs. Smt. Namita ITA Nos.297 & 410/IND/2013 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 297/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1) :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Ujjain Vs Smt. Namita Patwa Dewas :: ""यथ"/Respondent PAN – AJAPP1214C CO No. 77/Ind/2013 Arising out of ITA No. 297/Ind/2013 Smt. Namita Patwa Dewas :: Objector Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1, Ujjain :: Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 410/Ind…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…to be seen whether the expenditure 10 Wadhwa Constructions was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [see, Cl'T v. Birla Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC); CrT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544,549 (SC)]. 4.2 Now, we shall examine the provision of section 37(1) of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- "37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

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

ITA 623/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…referred to the propositions laid down in the following judgments in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261(SC) (ii) S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiriji, 91 ITR 544 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in the earlier paras. As per the Ld. Departmental Representative, there was no breach of agreement by the assessee and, therefore, he was under no obligation to either refund the fees for the non-produced E…

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

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

ITA 4763/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…referred to the propositions laid down in the following judgments in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261(SC) (ii) S.A Builders vs. CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC) (iii) CIT vs. Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingiriji, 91 ITR 544 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has reiterated the stand of the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in the earlier paras. As per the Ld. Departmental Representative, there was no breach of agreement by the assessee and, therefore, he was under no obligation to either refund the fees for the non-produced E…

Creative Labels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5777/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhcreative Labels Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4(1)(2), Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Room No. 305, Sharaf Mansion, 3Rd Floor, Princess Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaccc6150G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…als) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in disallowing charges Rs. 14,76,363/-. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhanrajgiriji reported in 91 ITR 544 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the law of the land that every businessman knows his interest best and it is not open to the department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. 3. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in susta…

M/S Sheetu Educational Service Pvt Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

ITA 354/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11