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 367,154 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.

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax-Range-1, Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…s now in appeal before us. 79. Before us, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 80. Per contra, the Ld. AR apart from supporting the order of CIT(A) also relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 220 ITR 29 (Kar) (iii) Smt. K. SuryakumariVenu Vs. ACIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 310 81. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of „tree plantation expenses‟ and „others‟ to be capital in…

Joint.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -I, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…s now in appeal before us. 79. Before us, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 80. Per contra, the Ld. AR apart from supporting the order of CIT(A) also relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Gogte Minerals (1996) 220 ITR 29 (Kar) (iii) Smt. K. SuryakumariVenu Vs. ACIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 310 81. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of „tree plantation expenses‟ and „others‟ to be capital in…

Astoria Agro & Allied Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 527/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on business. The said proposition is endorsed by the Hon. Supreme Court of India in the matter of CIT V/s. Malayalam Plantation Ltd. 53 ITR 140. From the above, we noted that in assessee's own case term loan obtained from State Bank of India is used for the purpose of its business i.e. to acquire fixed assets including carrying out its business operations. Thus, the utilization of the term loan for the purpose of the business has 7 | P a g e to be seen as a whole and not in isolation. The…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Cytespace Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…as assessee has incurred any expenditure for the purpose of its business, it would be allowed as a deduction even if there was no compelling necessity to incur such expenses. 1.16 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Malayalam Plantations Ltd (53 ITR 140), has explained the concept 'for the purpose of business' as follows: “The expression "for the purpose of business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is wide: it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its m…

Deven Chand Jain HUF, Singhbhum vs. DCIT Circle-3, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Jul 2019
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 234A

…of appeal of the assessee and the AO may kindly be directed to delete the same. 6. Replying to the above, ld. DR vehemently supported the action of authorities below and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.53 ITR 140 (SC) held that the expression ‘for the purpose of business’ is wider in scope than the expression ‘for the purpose of earning profits’. Ld. DR also submitted that there was no income during the relevant financial period to the assessee from the said establishment, therefore, expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be allowed and, thus, the impugn…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2966/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…that the said expenditure should actually result in income or increase in profits. With regard to this A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 contention, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) ii) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) 6.2 That further, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (2013) 260 CTR (Bom.) 159 wherein it has been held that no disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) could be made…

M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd., Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1539/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 36(1)(iii)

…that the said expenditure should actually result in income or increase in profits. With regard to this A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 contention, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) ii) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) 6.2 That further, the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (2013) 260 CTR (Bom.) 159 wherein it has been held that no disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) could be made…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lic Nomura Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3823/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. Nilu Jaggi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR
Section 143(3)

…apital 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 1), L.H Sugar Factory & 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…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC 38, (Presently DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5812/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5812/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) In The Matter Of: बनधम/ Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 (Presently Dcit., Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Vs. Air India Building, Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai- Skil House, 209 Bank 400021. Street Cross Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach9240E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)(Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Views Of The Ao By Confirming The Disallowance In Respect Of Interest Paid Amounting To Rs.4,00,55,791/- 2. On The Facts & In The Circusmtances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit-(A) Has Erred In Directing The Ao To Compute The Disallowance U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Of The I.T. Act, In Respect Of Shares/Investment In Mutual Funds, Which Have Yielded Dividends.”

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ses of the business”, a slightly wider and flexible approach is required, as has been emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT, AIR 1979 SC 1291 as well as in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., 53 ITR 140 (SC). In the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia (supra) the borrowed amount was donated to college with a view to commemorate the memory of assessee‟s deceased husband, and it was held that the interest on such borrowed fund was not allowable as it could not be said to be advanced for commercial expediency; so however, what was emphasised by the Hon'ble…

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Hec Ltd, Ranchi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 95/RAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…hether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business; reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. 16. We note that in CIT V Malayam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The expression ‘for the purpose of the business’ is wider in scope than the expression ‘for the purpose of earning profits’. Its range is Page10 wide; it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its machinery; it m…

Hec Ltd, Finance &Accounts, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 232/RAN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…hether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business; reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. 16. We note that in CIT V Malayam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The expression ‘for the purpose of the business’ is wider in scope than the expression ‘for the purpose of earning profits’. Its range is Page10 wide; it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its machinery; it m…

Hec Ltd, Finance &Accounts, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Ranchi

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 231/RAN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

…hether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business; reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. 16. We note that in CIT V Malayam Plantations Ltd 53 ITR 140 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The expression ‘for the purpose of the business’ is wider in scope than the expression ‘for the purpose of earning profits’. Its range is Page10 wide; it may take in not only the day to day running of a business but also the rationalization of its administration and modernization of its machinery; it m…

ACIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cc-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. Pan: Aaecs 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA (Before Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T, CC-3(2), Kolkata Vs M/s. Snowtex Investment Ltd. PAN: AAECS 0334C (Assessee/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee/department by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, ld.DR Respondent/assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Sr. Advocate, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 30-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 27-02 -2019 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1183/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MaheshwariFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…. Inspector of axes) Vs. British Insulated & Helsby cables Ltd. (1925) 10 Tax cases 155(HL) iii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iv) CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) v) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 vi) CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166(SC)” The ld. CIT(A) after considering facts of the case , assessment order and the submissions made by assessee held as follows: “6.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same it has been noticed at the outset that the inter…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…shoes of the businessman. The revenue cannot question the transaction on the ground that the same was not prudent and consequently held as sham. The ld. counsel has supported his contention with the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has submitted that the loss claimed by the assessee is not permissible as per the provisions of the Act as the basic nature of the transaction does not imply as transfer of capital asset or short term capital loss. In fact, it is forfeiture of the money pai…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…shoes of the businessman. The revenue cannot question the transaction on the ground that the same was not prudent and consequently held as sham. The ld. counsel has supported his contention with the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. 53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has submitted that the loss claimed by the assessee is not permissible as per the provisions of the Act as the basic nature of the transaction does not imply as transfer of capital asset or short term capital loss. In fact, it is forfeiture of the money pai…

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Dcit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Acit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Central Circle-13, Investments Ltd., New Delhi R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…t expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business is on allowable deduction even though same does not result in the running of the income, the Ld. counsel relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Malayalam Plantation Ltd 53 ITR 140 and CIT versus Birla cotton spinning and weaving Mills Ltd 82 ITR 166. In support of the contention that expenses incurred by the assessee during temporary suspension of business are allowable deduction, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Vikram cotton Mills Ltd 169 ITR 597 and decision of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jsl Ltd., Hisar

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4110/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…oncern 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" videCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 , CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. &Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 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 been done.‖…

Jindal Stainless Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 6337/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Parnav, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…oncern 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" videCIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 , CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. &Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1971] 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 been done.‖…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…for the purpose of business, such expenditure is an allowable deduction, even though 147 the same does not result in earning of income immediately. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.: 53 ITR 140. The apex Court reiterated the same approach in the following cases: • CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT : 118 ITR 200 (SC) In the present case, sharing of MSIL resources by group/ subsidiary companies providing insurance services was only meant to promote the purpose of MSIL’s bus…