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

Ashraj Foods & Veverages P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicted hereinabove

ITA 4838/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Ashraj Foods & Vs. Ito – 9(1)-1, Mumbai Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.23, Galaxy Apts., B.J.Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5134E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…s son abroad for higher studies as long as the expenditure has direct nexus with the business of the assessee and the expenditure will yield benefits to the business. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:-  CIT v Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 1973 91 ITR 544 (SC)  Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd., V/s CIT 118 ITR 261, 275-6 (SC)  CIT v Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Delhi HC)  Amarjothi Pictures v CIT (1968) 69 ITR 755 (Mad.) CIT v Gobald Motor Service (P) Ltd., (1975) 100 ITR 240 (Mad.) 13. In view of the above discussion and applying the proposition of law laid down in above judicial p…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…business. Further, it is to be seen whether the expenditure was bonafidely incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business [see, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC); CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji, (1973) 91 ITR 544, 549 (SC)]. 3.9. So far as, issue of quantum of the expenditure to be incurred is concerned, we are of the view, it is 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. The ratio laid d…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…the business, the Supreme Court laid down that the reasonableness of the expenditure 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…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…suggest how the businessman should conduct his business and have his affairs. The businessman knows his interest best. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanraj Girji Raja Narasingherji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC). Further reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Walchand and Co. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) wherein it was held that in applying the test of commercial expediency whether the expenditure was excessively laid down for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure is to be judged from th…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Toshbro Medicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7064/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7064/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Toshbro Medicals Dcit – 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, V. 8 Mohatta Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct4483C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran,DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…mitted that relief may be allowed u/s 80G of the Act. The assessee company relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J. David & Company Private Limited v. CIT, (1979)118 ITR 261(SC), in the case of CIT v. Dhanrajgirji, (!973)91 ITR 544(SC), ITAT decision in the case of Brightest ITA 7064/Mum/2012 6 Circle Jewellery v. ACIT in ITA No. 4511/Mum/2011 . The assessee company also relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers in ITXA No. 3908/2010 decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 21.6.2912. The learned CIT(A) observed that an amount of Rs. 25 lacs was pa…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…• CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 65 ITR 381 • J K Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612(SC) • CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) • CIT vs. EKL Appl…

Ascendas (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1255/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. M/S. Ascendas (India) Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ist Floor, International Techpark, Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, Corporate Circle I(1) Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 113. [Pan Aaacj 9055H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

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

…Pandit Bros. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Pun) (e) CIT vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2010) 344 ITR 161 (Bom) (f) Eastern Investments Ltd vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) (g) CIT vs. Walchand & Co etc. (1967( 65 ITR 271(SC) (h) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) (i) CIT vs. A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) (j) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad) (k) Dhakesari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (l) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All)’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the submissions and confirmed the order of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ranjana Garg, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2349/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132Section 23(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. H. S. Sidhu, JM ITA No. 2346/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs Smt. Amita Garg, Tax, Central Circle-12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADPG0990L CO No. 255/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Smt. Amita Garg, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income G-15, Maharani Bagh, Tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADPG0990L ITA No. 2347/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs Smt…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Amita Garg, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2346/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132Section 23(1)(a)

M/S. Chamical Sale Corp., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6009/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Chamical Sale Corp., Vs. Ito, Dcm Building, 3Rd Floor, Ward-31(3), 16- Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaffc7156C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Rp Mall, Adv. & Shailesh Gupta, Ca Department By: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Raising The Issues Of Validity Of Disallowance Of Business Loss At Rs.2,49,593 Sustained By The Learned Cit(Appeals).

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, RP Mall, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)

…s as evidence of payments of house-tax of Rs.1,71,040; and partnership deed of Shri Suresh Goel, Shri Gautam Goel and Smt. Anuradha Goel for running the flower business. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Dhanraj Giri Raja - 91 ITR 544 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. - 254 ITR 377 (Del.); iii) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT - 37 ITR 151 (SC); 3. The Learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with this submission that it is an established position of the law that onus always lies upon the claimant to establish the genuine…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. E.I.H. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

CIT vs. Modi Revlon Pvt Ltd

ITA/1450/2010HC Delhi29 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 40A

…sed consultancy charges, having received from the Assessee, in its returns, and paid Income Tax. It was submitted that the Tribunal correctly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P. v Dhanrajgiriji Raja Narsinghji 91 ITR 544 (SC) Analysis and Reasoning 13. Before discussing the rival submissions, it would be essential to extract the relevant portion of the know how agreement below: “THIS AGREEMENT dated as of July 27, 1994 between REVLON MAURITIUS LIMITED, a Mauritius Corporation (“Licensor”) and MODI-REVLON PRIVATE LIMITED, an Indian Corporation (“Licens…

Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/192/2009HC Delhi01 Apr 2009

For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta &

Section 260A

…below to disallow out of Rs 87.86 lacs a sum of Rs 44.44 lacs paid as contribution to YRMPL. In order to buttress his submission the learned counsel also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji; (1973) 91 ITR 544 at page 550 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders vs CIT; (2007) 288 ITR 1 at page 14. The learned counsel for the Revenue Ms Prem Lata Bansal, in opposition, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. As is evident from the facts detailed out by the authorities below the assessee-company under…