CIT v. Lokenath & Co.

147 ITR 624High Court1984#14926 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 37(1)section 143(3)business

Judgments citing CIT v. Lokenath & Co.

ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi vs. River Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 9446/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 9446/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Acit, Vs M/S River Builders Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), C-59, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr2730H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi’S In Case No. 10415/410/Cit(A)-7/Del/2018-19 Dated 06.09.2019, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…eading to increase in revenue. It was submitted that the expenses are therefore for the purpose of business and therefore are fully allowable. The appellant also relied on: 7. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Lok Nath & Co. (Construction) 1994 147 ITR 624 (Del) held the charge is not on gross receipts but on profits and gains property so called. The profits to be assessed are real profits and they must be ascertained on ordinary principles of commercial expediency. The partnership was formed for the purpose of construction of a multi-storied building called as Himalaya House and for the purpose of…

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.95/SRT/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) GTPL Rajwadi Network Pvt. Dy. Commissioner of Income- Ltd. Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat- Vs. Plot No.72 Shop No.1-2-3, 395001 Bamroli Road, Bamroli-394210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCG 1544 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA राज" की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/D…

Macrotech Developers Ltd(Successor to Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 1863/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…luding the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Shipping Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana: [2014] 49 taxman.com 565 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lokenath & Co [1984] 147 ITR 624. In rejoinder, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant 8. submitted that the payment made in the present case was fine. Further, there was no deviation in the sanctioned plant and the constructed building. Therefore, the judgment on which reliance was placed by the Ld. Departmental Representative were not applicable to the facts of th…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7714/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7714/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh.A.K.Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "द"ल" "यायपीठ “सी”, नई "द"ल" म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI सु"ी सुषमा चावला, उपा"य" एवं "ी एन. के. "ब"लैया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, VP & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.7714/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2012-13 Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.s 1 & 2, Sector-3, Imt. Manesar, Gurgaon-122050. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN-AAACH7467D vs The DCIT, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-2(1), Gurgaon. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Sh. Karan Jain, C…

M/S.Vighnaharta Builders & Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.CIT, Range-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6499/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Vighnaharta Builders Acit Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaacv3498G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…unding fine as an expenditure incurred by the assessee during the course of its business. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the impugned order relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lokenath & Co. (Construction) [1984] 147 ITR 624 wherein the Delhi High Court took the view that the payment of compounding fine by the assessee to regularise the construction of the building made in violation of the Building Regulations must be regarded as an integral part of the profit-earning process of the assessee. On reference, the Hon’ble High Court held : “ From the scheme of several pr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers, New Delhi

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

ITA 1332/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 28/01/2011 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi [In Short “The Cit-(A)”] For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Ahmedabad cotton manufacturing company limited 205 ITR 163 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Loke Nath and Company (Construction), 147 ITR 624 (Del). 5.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. The facts that payment of Rs.5,78,78,730/-has been made as compounding fee to the GDA has not been disputed by the 11 assessee, which is evident from the affidavit filed by the assessee before the GDA, order of the Secretary, GDA and letter sent by the Secr…

CIT v. Lokenath & Co. (147 ITR 624) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax