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.

Asst CIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. S.H. Kelkar & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 143/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax -4(3)(2), Mumbai 36, Devkaran Mansion, Room No. 649, Aayakar Mangaldas Road, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Mumbai-400 002 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaacs9778G

For Appellant: Sauravh V. Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)(iii)

…n the case of CIT vs Chemosyn Ltd., Mumbai in ITA No. 361 of 2013 and I TA N o. 1 43 /M um /2 0 1 6 S.H . Ke lk a r & C o . Pv t. Lt d (A.Y:12-13) also considering the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in Paras. 5.4.1 to 5.4.3 as under: - “5.4.1 I have considered the contention of the AO as well as of the AR of the appellant. I find that the issue is again identical to the one raised in AY 2008- 09 and AY 2009-10. The learned AR has pointed out that the issue as earlier dismissed by the Hon’bl…

M/S Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Sukumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl.No. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent Asst. Year 1. 1056/Bang/2016 M/s. Khoday India Dy. Commissioner of 2012-13 Limited, Income Tax, Brewery House, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. 7th Mile, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore-560 062 2. 1256/Bang/2017 Income Tax Officer, M/s. Khoday India 2009-10 Ward 4(1)(2), Bangalore. Limited, Bangalore. 3. 791/Bang/2017 M/s. Khoday India Asst. Commissioner of 2009-10 Limited, Bangalore. Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore. 4. 1165/Bang/2016 M/s…

ITO, Ward-1, Jharsuguda vs. Umesh Kumar Poddar, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…g to Rs.9,38,126/-. Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 201 2 9. Before the CIT(A), the assessee relied on the following decisions stating that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not in spirit of section 36 of the Act: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantation Ltd., 53 ITR 140(SC) ii) Madhav Prasad jatia vs CIT, 118 itr 200 (SC) iii) Regal Theatre vs CIT, 225itra 205 (Del) iv) CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd., 56 ITR 77 (SC) v) CIT vs. Madan Lal Jain, 136 ITR 409(Del) vi) Chhail Behari Lal vs CIT, 39 ITR 696 (All) vii) Calico Dyeing & Printing Works vs CIT,59ITR 221 (Bom) 10. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…arrying on the business of the assessee. It has been repeatedly held by Supreme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sist…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…arrying on the business of the assessee. It has been repeatedly held by Supreme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sist…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…arrying on the business of the assessee. It has been repeatedly held by Supreme 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), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sist…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 383 & 384/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, v. Income-tax, CP Ramaswamy Road, Corporate Circle-3(1), Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Chennai. PAN AABCE3846Q (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 418 & 419/M…

Virender Kumar Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6293/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. Pan: Abtpg 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Gurgaon, Vide Order Dated 14.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Virender Kumar Gupta, Nai Anaj Mandi, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon. Farrukhnagar. PAN: ABTPG 0018L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(s) by : S/Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. and P.K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon, vide order dated 14.10.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2.…

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3595/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax, 5(1), V. Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Aaykar Bhavan, Port, M.K. Road, Sheva, District Uran, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai – 400 707. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccg1899E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran NisarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ording to Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the assessee, this expression has a fairly wide import, so as to include any expense, which would have any connection with the business. He relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 ; [1964] 7 SCR 693 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that this expression is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". He submitted that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was paid to the Maharashtra Government for the development of roads and the port of Redi which were seriously damaged during the rains and floods and for pr…

M/S. C.K. Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. The DCIT, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

…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.' 13. In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377/121 Taxman 706 wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and…

E-City Investments & Holdings Comapny P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1153/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…t. It is noteworthy that while coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the decision already taken in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (supra) and also considered in Madhav Prasad case (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), CIT vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT vs Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT vs Dalmia Cements (B.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.), CIT vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P & H). Identical ratio was laid down in S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 19 (Kolkata)(TM); 29 taxman.com 221 (Kolkata)(Trib.)(TM). 2…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…ncern 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. [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.…

Lodha Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2012/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Lodha Properties Vs. Acit- Cc-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan/Gir No. Aabc12222K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Lodha Properties Vs. ACIT- CC-42, Mumbai - Development Private 400020 Limited, 216, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, Off. E.Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 PAN/GIR No. AABC12222K Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by Dr. Santosh Mankoskar Date of Hearing 07/11/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-2010 in the matter of order passed u/s.…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3378/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…f penalty. It is not attributable to any irregularity or infringement of law. The claim is therefore properly admissible for deduction as business expenditure. 68. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (Copy enclosed at pages 739-750 of assessee‟s Paper Book) very precisely defines the scope of deduction of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act corresponding to section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as under:- "The Expression "for the purpose for the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profi…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 5613/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…f penalty. It is not attributable to any irregularity or infringement of law. The claim is therefore properly admissible for deduction as business expenditure. 68. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (Copy enclosed at pages 739-750 of assessee‟s Paper Book) very precisely defines the scope of deduction of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act corresponding to section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as under:- "The Expression "for the purpose for the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profi…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…f penalty. It is not attributable to any irregularity or infringement of law. The claim is therefore properly admissible for deduction as business expenditure. 68. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (Copy enclosed at pages 739-750 of assessee‟s Paper Book) very precisely defines the scope of deduction of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act corresponding to section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as under:- "The Expression "for the purpose for the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profi…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1097/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…f penalty. It is not attributable to any irregularity or infringement of law. The claim is therefore properly admissible for deduction as business expenditure. 68. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) (Copy enclosed at pages 739-750 of assessee‟s Paper Book) very precisely defines the scope of deduction of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act corresponding to section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as under:- "The Expression "for the purpose for the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profi…