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.

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, 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 3021/MUM/2011[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 24 & 26, 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 3019/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

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 24 & 26, 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 2986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

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 24 & 26, 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 2985/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

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. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 1930/MUM/2011[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…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 1929/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

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. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 1928/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

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. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 1927/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

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. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 1907/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

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…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ess‖ used in the aforesaid section is not limited to earning profit alone and if the expenditure satisfies the test of business / commercial expediency, the same needs to be allowed deduction under the aforesaid section: (i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd.:53 ITR 140 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning. & Weaving Mills Ltd.: 82ITR 166 (SC) (iii)Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT: 118 ITR 200 (SC) His further argument was that Even where expenditure is incurred by an assessee on account of commercial / business expediency, the same is allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Act: (i) CIT vs. Walc…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, 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 3020/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

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…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhor Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 4480/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Surabhi SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. S.C.Tiwari &
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Dy. CIT- 1(1)(1), M/s. Bhor Industries Ltd., 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Tanna House Annexe, 11-A, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai- 400 005. PAN: AAACV3535C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Surabhi Sharma Respondent by : Shri. S.C.Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar Date of Hearing: 16/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 06/…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…e of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sale proceeds of the relevant financial year was Rs. 114.08 crores and tha…

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…e of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sale proceeds of the relevant financial year was Rs. 114.08 crores and tha…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Ryerson Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…e of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sale proceeds of the relevant financial year was Rs. 114.08 crores and tha…

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sterlite Paper Ltd ( Sterlite Infra Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4056/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3865/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3) बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Sterlite Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillayar Koil Street, Kangam Tharamani, Chennai - 600113 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4056/M/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit 2(3) बनाम/ M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. R.No.552, 5Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K.Road, Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Khautau Bldg, 2Nd Floor, Sbs Road, Bank St., Fort, Mumbai - 400023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs1424A

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…the company and according to the section 37 of the Act the expenses incurred to preservation and protected the assets of the company are liable to be deducted. In support of this contention we also found support of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140(SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT Vs. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Firm (1971) 79 ITR 104 (Bom HC( and Hindustan Chemical Works Limited Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561 (Bom. HC) etc. Therefore, in A.Y. 2008-09 view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judici…

Sterlite Infra Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Paper Ltd), Chennai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3865/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3865/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3) बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Sterlite Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 No.1, Sai Flats No.55, Pillayar Koil Street, Kangam Tharamani, Chennai - 600113 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4056/M/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit 2(3) बनाम/ M/S. Sterlite Infra Ltd. R.No.552, 5Th Floor, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K.Road, Paper Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Khautau Bldg, 2Nd Floor, Sbs Road, Bank St., Fort, Mumbai - 400023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs1424A

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…the company and according to the section 37 of the Act the expenses incurred to preservation and protected the assets of the company are liable to be deducted. In support of this contention we also found support of CIT Vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited (1964) 53 ITR 140(SC) and CIT Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) and CIT Vs. R.B.Bansilal Abirchand Firm (1971) 79 ITR 104 (Bom HC( and Hindustan Chemical Works Limited Vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 561 (Bom. HC) etc. Therefore, in A.Y. 2008-09 view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judici…

Vipula J Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6064/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Vipula J. Choksi Vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)-4 Siddhi Priya Building Aaykar Bhavan, N.S. Road 4, Jvpd Scheme Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 056. Pan: Acxpc2426M Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…rn was by way of commercial expediency. 26. 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 & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82ITR 166 (SC), etc. 27. 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 ha…

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 35

…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 16 Strides Shasun Limited Strides Arcolab Limited Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82ITR 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 establis…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…oup companies. The settled position of law is 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 repeatedly in the following cases: • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 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) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd.…