CIT v. Discovery Communication India (Delhi High Court)

370 ITR 57High Court#20653 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Discovery Communication India (Delhi High Court)

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…t Ltd: ITA no. 2181 to 2183/Del/2010 (Del). [Pg. 262 of PB- CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT vs. N.G.C. Network (India) P. Ltd. : 368 ITR 738 (Mumbai) [Pg. 114 of PB-CL-1 for AY 2006-07| Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Discovery Communication India: 370 ITR 57, reiterated the law in this regard |Pg. 287 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07): "10.4. When expenditure is Incurred for appellant's own business, the mere fact that the expenditure would Inure or benefits a third party or the third party incidentally obtains some advantage, would not affect or distract from the finding that the expenditure was wholly and…

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6061/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…sideration and therefore were rightly allowed by the ld CIT(A). The ld A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his arguments: a)CIT Vs Yum Restaurants India Pvt Ltd. 371 ITR 139 (Delhi) M/s. Bhandar Power Ltd. b)CIT Vs Discovery Communication India 370 ITR 57 (Delhi) c)S.A Builders Vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) The ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has considered all the above aspects while passing the order and therefore the same needs to be affirmed on this issue. 23. After hearing both the sides and carefully perusing the materials as placed before us including the case laws cited by the rival parties, w…

Lodha Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lodha Properties Vs. Acit- Cc-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan/Gir No. Aabc12222K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…s. 7. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements relied on by learned AR in the case of CIT vs. Discovery Communication India (Delhi High Court) – 370 ITR 57. Delhi High Court in case of Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd., - 371 ITR139 in support of the proposition that expenditure laid out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business is to be allowed. 8. In support of the above contentions, learned AR had also relied on the following judicial pronouncements: . 1. Sassocn J. David a…

Portman Advisory P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 5141/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5141/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Portman Advisory Private Limited The Dy. Cit-3(2), (Formerly Known As Portman Real Estate India Private Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Limited) H.S. Marg Vs. 78-B, 7Th Floor, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaecp 6276 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh Trivedi-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dt.16.06.2014 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Providing Consultancy & Advisory Related Services To Project Management Services In India,Filed Its Return Of Income 30.09.2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,22,59,801/-.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment Order U/S.143(3)Of The Act,On 13.02.2013,Determining Its Income At Rs.1.63 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh Trivedi-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…isions are to be taken from a business point of view and have to be respected by the authorities, regardless of the fact that it may appear, to the latter, to be expenditure incurred unnecessarily or avoidably.” In the matter of Discovery Communication India(370 ITR 57)the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has dealt the issue before us,in detail and has held as follow: The words “wholly and exclusively” though not synonymous and are sufficiently wide and not restricted to expenditure solely incurred for the purpose of earning of profits. For an amount to be treated as an admissible expenditure under section 37(1) of the…