CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.

53 ITR 140Supreme Court of India1964#460 most cited

What is CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. authority for?

The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than "for the purpose of earning profits" and encompasses expenditures made for commercial expediency, business preservation, administration, and modernization.

201

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. · 53 ITR 140 · Section 37 · Section 36(1)(iii) · Income Tax Act 1961 · for the purpose of business · commercial expediency · scope of business purpose · deductibility of expenditure · earning profits

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 37Section 1872: Section 62Section 194(I)(b)Section 1963: Rule 29Section 24

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1663/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)., Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1120/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Ksk Energy Company Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

ITA 1745/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1745/H/2016 and 1120, 1121 & 1663/H/2017 AY.: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. KSK Energy Company Income-tax, Circle – Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 2(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCK9414B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao Date of hearing: 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: All these appeals filed by the…

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)

…e settled position of law that the reasonableness of the expenditure has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and not that of the Revenue, as laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly in the following cases: - CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 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) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Ta…

Mason Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…ern was by way of commercial expediency. 29. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression " for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. fl9641 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. r 19711 82 ITR 166 etc. 30. The High Court and the other authorities should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister concern, and what the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency, but that has not b…

M/S Iol Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Addl. CIT, R-I, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1419/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 115JSection 250(6)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…ount given to M/S G. drugs and pharmaceuticals Ltd (GDPL) out of commercial expediency. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • C.R. Auluck & Sons (2014) 360 ITR 93 (P&H) • S.A. Builders, (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Malyalam Plantations (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Tulip Star Hotels (2012) 21 Taxmann 97 (SC) • Crescent Organics (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 128 (Bom) • Hero Cycles (SC) Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008 • CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2017) 79 taxmann.com 364 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…ent out of above funds is an expenditure laid out 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business'. The expression 'for the purpose of business' had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.(53 ITR 140) wherein it was held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'. It may include not only the day-today running of business but also rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…ent out of above funds is an expenditure laid out 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business'. The expression 'for the purpose of business' had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.(53 ITR 140) wherein it was held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'. It may include not only the day-today running of business but also rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…ent out of above funds is an expenditure laid out 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business'. The expression 'for the purpose of business' had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.(53 ITR 140) wherein it was held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'. It may include not only the day-today running of business but also rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…ent out of above funds is an expenditure laid out 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business'. The expression 'for the purpose of business' had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.(53 ITR 140) wherein it was held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'. It may include not only the day-today running of business but also rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…ent out of above funds is an expenditure laid out 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business'. The expression 'for the purpose of business' had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.(53 ITR 140) wherein it was held that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression 'for the purpose of earning profits'. It may include not only the day-today running of business but also rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery; it may include measures for the preservation of the business…

Shri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JODH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

…to be allowed under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), etc. 8. The ld AR of the assessee further stated that the AO as well as the CIT (A) has without appreciating the fact and material on record as stated above has disallowed the interest expenses. 9. On the other hand, the Ld CIT-DR has relied upon the orders of the l…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…ets. Further it was submitted that the Assessing Officer having granted the maintenance expenditure of Car, it is not proper to disallow the depreciation on the same Car. He relied on the following judgements : 14 i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Lawrence D’Souza (2011) 203 Taxman 200 (Kar) iv) Hirsh Bracelet India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2019) 178 ITD 601 (Bang – Trib) v) Sai Fragrance & Flavours (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 235 (Mum-Trib). 5.1 Further it was submitted that even the assessee has discontinued…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12044 OF 2016 SHIV RAJ GUPTA …Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV …Respondent J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The present appeal relating to assessment year 1995-96 is by one Shri Shiv Raj Gupta, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CDBL”), which had a unit in Meerut manufacturing beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (hereinafter referred to as “IMFL”). T…

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 82/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the expression “for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits" vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd, [1964] 53 ITR 140, CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. AWvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 166 etc. It is important to mention that even the investments made in share capital of the subsidiary companies by the assessee could not be called the investments for non-business purpose because in the memorandum and the articles of the company, one of the objects the assessee-company men…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Kunnel Engineers & Contractors P. Ltd, Kochi

ITA 653/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 43B

…Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (38 ITR 601) (SC) 7. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (208 ITR 989) (Bom.) 8. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (215 ITR 582) (Bom.) 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Del.). 10. CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) (SC) 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the assessee has not established in the cash flow statements about the availability of enough own funds at the time of making investments in the exempted income yielding assets. Hence, it is appropriate to verify the fact whether enough own funds are available wit…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6482/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6482 /Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Acit Range-2(2) Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. Ita. No. 6822/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Acit Range-2(2) बिधम/ State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Vs. Compliance & Taxation Dept. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi Mehta Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000-01. Ita. No.6482/M/2010 6822/M/2010 A.Y. 2000-01 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.07.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-05, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2000- 01. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 14ASection 43D

…pital in nature. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (124 ITR i), L. H. Sugar Factor & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (125 ITR 293), CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140), Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (118 ITR 261). From the above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we will reproduce the findings of one of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble Court was concerned whether, Estate Duty paid by the company on the death of shareholders can…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1292/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…oncern was by way of commercial expediency. 30. It has been repeatedly held by this court that the expression “for the purpose of business” is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning profits” vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc.” In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose o…

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3572/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. and Shri V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…oncern was by way of commercial expediency. 30. It has been repeatedly held by this court that the expression “for the purpose of business” is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning profits” vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc.” In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose o…