CIT v. India

236 ITR 719High Court1999#6428 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 244ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 80mright to receivesection 18withholding taxsection 41interest on securitiesmercantile system of accountingchildsection 260section 260asection 145disallowance under section 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. India

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…n case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the Ld.AR relied on the decision of cases decided in favour of the a…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…n case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the Ld.AR relied on the decision of cases decided in favour of the a…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…urt in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [261 ITR 501], decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Venkata Satyanarayana rice mills versus CIT [223 ITR 101], honourable Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT versus India radiators limited [236 ITR 719] and Page | 9 honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus Emtici engineering Ltd [242 ITR 86.] 14) The learned assessing officer held that in the case of the assessee these payments are in the nature of outright grants or deposits. It has been held in the earlier years that such expenditure is not really for the welfare of the staff b…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…urt in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [261 ITR 501], decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Venkata Satyanarayana rice mills versus CIT [223 ITR 101], honourable Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT versus India radiators limited [236 ITR 719] and ` honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus Emtici engineering Ltd [242 ITR 86.] 14) The learned assessing officer held that in the case of the assessee these payments are in the nature of outright grants or deposits. It has been held in the earlier years that such expenditure is not really for the welfare of the staff but is m…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd [261 ITR 501], decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Venkata Satyanarayana rice mills versus CIT [223 ITR 101], honourable Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT versus India radiators limited [236 ITR 719] and Page | 9 honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus Emtici engineering Ltd [242 ITR 86.] 14) The learned assessing officer held that in the case of the assessee these payments are in the nature of outright grants or deposits. It has been held in the earlier years that such expenditure is not really for the welfare of the…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 289/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ctly facilitates in carrying on business activities of the assessee. Therefore, the contribution made by the assessee are allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of IT Act. A similar decision was rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Radiators Ltd 236 ITR 719 (Mad) wherein the following has been held:- “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to the children of the employees in the said Page 24 of 54 Som Disti…

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 272/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…ctly facilitates in carrying on business activities of the assessee. Therefore, the contribution made by the assessee are allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of IT Act. A similar decision was rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Radiators Ltd 236 ITR 719 (Mad) wherein the following has been held:- “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to the children of the employees in the said Page 24 of 54 Som Disti…

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999 pages 29 to 32 of the compilation. The Id. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions in this regard. Shri Venkatastayanarayana Rice Mills Vs CIT (223 ITR 101) (SC)  CIT VS India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad)  CIT Vs Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) 33. The Id. D.R., on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, its was arbitrary and un-reasonable, hence, assessee being as government owned bank falling within definition as per Article 12 of Constitution of India could not do so an…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999 pages 29 to 32 of the compilation. The Id. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions in this regard. Shri Venkatastayanarayana Rice Mills Vs CIT (223 ITR 101) (SC)  CIT VS India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad)  CIT Vs Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) 33. The Id. D.R., on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, its was arbitrary and un-reasonable, hence, assessee being as government owned bank falling within definition as per Article 12 of Constitution of India could not do so an…

U C I L,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 385/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 May 2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Barman with Arijit Bhattacherjee, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Uranium Corporation of ACIT, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. PAN: AAACU 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri P.K. Barman with Arijit Bhattacherjee, AR Respondent by : Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The ca…

M/S. U C I L ,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 384/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 May 2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Barman with Arijit Bhattacherjee, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Uranium Corporation of ACIT, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. PAN: AAACU 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri P.K. Barman with Arijit Bhattacherjee, AR Respondent by : Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The ca…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…1) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) ii. CIT vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. 350 ITR 1 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) iv. CIT vs. India Radiator Ltd. 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 3214/Del/2013 (Del. ITAT) vi. Airport Authority of India vs. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del HC) 26. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The horticulture expenses on planting of trees, maintenance of lawns and areas in the close vicinity of the offices/ pl…

GAIL (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-LTU DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…1) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i. Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) ii. CIT vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. 350 ITR 1 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Madras Refineries Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) iv. CIT vs. India Radiator Ltd. 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 3214/Del/2013 (Del. ITAT) vi. Airport Authority of India vs. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del HC) 26. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The horticulture expenses on planting of trees, maintenance of lawns and areas in the close vicinity of the offices/ pl…

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

…e assessee following the orders for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs. CIT: 166 ITR 836 (Kar.) • Mahindra and Mahindra vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) • CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd.: 266 ITR 170(Mad) • CIT v. Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd: T.C.(A).No.57 of 2006 (Chennai) • CIT vs Jayendrakumar Hiralal: 327 ITR 147 (Guj) • CIT vs. Karnataka Financial Corporation: 326 ITR 355 (Kar) • Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 109 TTJ (Bang)631 • Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. DCIT 96 IT…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…e it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) was further followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679. (iii) In the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed as under: “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to the children of the employees in the said school. The Tribunal…

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…e it was incurred predominantly for staff welfare. The decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) was further followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679. (iii) In the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.), the Madras High Court observed as under: “The finding of the Tribunal is that by making the contribution to the Panchayat for upgrading the elementary school, the assessee-company was assured by the school management that it would give preference in the matter of admission to the children of the employees in the said school. The Tribunal…

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 253/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2007-08

…cision the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT 96 ITD 186 (Mum.), the Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Refinery Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) (HC) and CIT Vs. India Radiators Ltd. 236 ITR 719 (Mad.) (HC). 72.1 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the authorities below. 72.3 We have heard the rival contentions; we are unable to accept the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the expenditure is allowable as the same was related to the business of the assessee. The assessee has…

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

…Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 349 of 484 261 ITR 501(Bom.); CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra: 284 ITR 679; CIT v. India Radiators Ltd.: 236 ITR 719 (Mad.)] In view of the above, it is submitted, that the aforesaid expenditure are in the alternate admissible for deduction as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 177) Ld. departmental representative relied upon the order of the lower authorities and vehemently supported them. 178) We have heard the rival contentions. The purpose…