CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal

59 ITR 120High Court1966#7971 most cited
14

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 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 48Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

mlicolourable devicecommercial expediencychildsection 145section 145(3)scrutiny assessmenttransfersection 143(2)section 143personsection 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1185/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…purchaser, as profits of the assessee CIT v. A. Raman & Co., (1968)67 ITR 11,17 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd.., (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. V. CIT, (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad). Also see, CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal, (1966) 59 ITR 120 (Guj); Gnanambika Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1965) 58 ITR 795 (Mad); Das & Co.v. CIT, (1962) 45 ITR 369 (Pat); Patiala Biscuit Manufacturers P.Ltd.v. CIT, (1976) 103 ITR 208, 216-7 (Punj); Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co.v.CIT, (1977) 108 ITR 54 (Guj); CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany, (1998) 230 ITR 679,682 (Cal)" The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.…

ACIT-15(1)(2),MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the a In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment ssessee for Assessment

ITA 6215/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Namrata R. Dedhia

…nessman and not of the Revenue. the businessman and not of the Revenue. the businessman and not of the Revenue. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs 8.4 The Hon’ble Keshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120 Keshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120 Keshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120 (Gujrat) held that when a person dispose goods at on dispose goods at lesser value than the market value or at a concessional lesser value than the market value or at a concessional lesser value than the market value or at a concessional price , the…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6074/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(2)

…out for the\npurpose of the business, reasonableness of the\nExpenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of\nthe businessman and not of the Revenue.\n\n8.4\nThe Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs\nKeshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120\n(Gujrat) held that when a person dispose goods at\nlesser value than the market value or at a concessional\nprice , there is nothing in income tax law which\n\ncompels the him to sell at a price which realizable in\nmarket.\n\n8.5\nFollowing the aforesaid precedents, we are of the\nconsidered view that it is not within the authority of the\nAsses…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6073/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)

…aid out for the\npurpose of the business, reasonableness of the\nExpenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of\nthe businessman and not of the Revenue.\n8.4 The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs\nKeshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120\n(Gujrat) held that when a person dispose goods at\nlesser value than the market value or at a concessional\nprice , there is nothing in income tax law which\ncompels the him to sell at a price which realizable in\nmarket.\n8.5 Following the aforesaid precedents, we are of the\nconsidered view that it is not within the authority of the\nAssessing…

NEST CHILDCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment\nYears 2012-13 to

ITA 6072/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(2)

…aid out for the\npurpose of the business, reasonableness of the\nExpenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of\nthe businessman and not of the Revenue.\n8.4 The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs\nKeshavlal Chandulal reported in (1966) 59 ITR 120\n(Gujrat) held that when a person dispose goods at\nlesser value than the market value or at a concessional\nprice , there is nothing in income tax law which\ncompels the him to sell at a price which realizable in\nmarket.\n8.5 Following the aforesaid precedents, we are of the\nconsidered view that it is not within the authority of the\nAssessing…

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.02/SRT/2021 (AY 2011-12) (Hearing in Physical Court) M/s C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra PAN No. AAGFC 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mayur J Gorsani, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/D…

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…asonableness. Therefore, expenditure incurred was allowed under section 37(1). 54. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:  SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co Ltd 91 ITR 8 (SC)  CIT vs Keshavial Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj)  Flipkart India Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bang)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008) (SC) dated 5 November 2015  Dresser-Rand India Private Limited (141 TTJ 385) (Mumbai ITAT) dated 7 September 2011  M/s. La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2380/Ahd/2015) (Ahmedabad ITAT) dated 23 September 2019 Ground No. 8 - Adjudication of a…

ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT,CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…asonableness. Therefore, expenditure incurred was allowed under section 37(1). 54. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions in this regard:  SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co Ltd 91 ITR 8 (SC)  CIT vs Keshavial Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj)  Flipkart India Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bang)  Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008) (SC) dated 5 November 2015  Dresser-Rand India Private Limited (141 TTJ 385) (Mumbai ITAT) dated 7 September 2011  M/s. La Renon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 2380/Ahd/2015) (Ahmedabad ITAT) dated 23 September 2019 Ground No. 8 - Adjudication of a…

PRAKASH TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4)., AHMEDABAD

In the results, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2119/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Prakash Tradelink P Ltd Ito, Ward-3(1)(4) 264, 2Nd Floor Ahmedabad. Vs Gunj Bazar O/S Delhi Gate Madhupura, Ahmedabad. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145

…he business decisions of the assessee, and it is for businessman to determine at which price it has to sell its products to its customers. The ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts, viz. CI T Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal, 59 ITR 120 (Guj), CIT Vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., 91 ITR 8 (SC), A. Khadar Basha Vs. ACIT, 58 taxmanncom 332 (Karn), Flipkart India P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 92txmann.com 387 (Bang-Trib) and Sir Ramalinga Chodambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, 28 ITR952 (Mad). The ld.DR on the other hand, supported the order of Revenue authorities. 7. I have considered submissions of b…

ADANI AGRO PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is thus allowed

ITA 1809/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P. Meena& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Parin ShahFor Respondent: 17.09.2019
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…of MarghabhaiKishabhai Patel & Co. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court referred to the case of Madras High Court in the case of RamlingaChoodambikaiMils Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 281 ITR 952 and that of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. KeshavlalChandulal (1996) 59 ITR 120 and held as under:- "In absence of evidence to show either that the sales were sham transaction or that the market price were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate to benefit to purchaser at the expenses of the company would not entitled to income-tax department to assess the difference between…

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court referred to the case of Madras High Court in the case of Ramlinga Choodambikai Mils Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 281 ITR 952 and that of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal (1996) 59 ITR 120 and held as under:- "In absence of evidence to show either that the sales were sham transaction or that the market price were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate to benefit to purchaser at the expenses of the company would not entitled to income-tax department to assess the difference between m…

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Co. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court referred to the case of Madras High Court in the case of Ramlinga Choodambikai Mils Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 281 ITR 952 and that of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal (1996) 59 ITR 120 and held as under:- "In absence of evidence to show either that the sales were sham transaction or that the market price were in fact paid by the purchasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate to benefit to purchaser at the expenses of the company would not entitled to income-tax department to assess the difference between m…

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

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

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…TR 54 wherein it was held as under: ITA Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (by assessee) and ITA No.1689/Ahd/2015 (by revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2008-09 51 In view of the decision of this High Court in CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal [1966] 59 ITR 120 , unless it has been shown that the transaction in question was a sham one or unless the value shown was not the value in the books of accounts or unless it was not a bona fide transaction, it was not open to the taxing authorities to disregard the figures of the transactions shown in the books of account of the firm. In the instant case, it was n…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. LEO DUCT ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4609/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ransaction is not 9 I.T.A No.4609/Mum2014 M/s Leo Duct Engineers & Consultants Ltd. bona-fide. Our view find support from the decision in Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel & Company vs CIT 108 ITR 54 (Guj.) relying upon 28 ITR 952 (Mad.), CIT vs Keshavlal Chandulal 59 ITR 120 (Guj.) and Das & Company vs CIT 45 ITR 369 (Pat.). The scope of section 40A(2) is to disallow only unreasonable or excessive payments in computing the income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in TCV Engineering Ltd. vs ACIT (2006) 284 ITR 470 (Mad.) supports our view. 2.10. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Ashok J. Patel (2014) 225 taxman…

CIT v. Keshavlal Chandulal (59 ITR 120) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax