How many judgments cite CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd.?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd. (185 ITR 564), spanning 2016 to 2022.

CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd.

185 ITR 564High Court1990#9487 most cited

What is CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure is deductible if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of keeping the assessee company in operation and earning income, even if it is unremunerative. The quantum of money expended relates to the concept of 'wholly'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. · 185 ITR 564 · HC · expenditure · wholly and exclusively · earning income · business operation · unremunerative expenditure · deduction

Judgments citing CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd.

Dy.CIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Citra Properties Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 100/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Citra Properties Ltd., M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle-6(4), Connaught Place, Room No.1925, Vs. New Delhi – 110001 19Th Floor, Pan: Aadcc 0776B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojiya, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 245D(4)Section 68

…ed. In the case of the appellant, the business of the appellant has started and the expenses have been incurred in relation to the normal course of the business. 5 M/s. Citra Properties Ltd. In the case of CIT v. New Savan Sugar &Gur Refining Co. Ltd. [1990] 185 ITR 564 (Cal.), the Hon'ble court has held that it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of keeping the assessee company in operation and earning income in as much as the concept 'wholly' pertains to quantum of the money expended. Even if a particular expenditure is un-remunerative, such expenditure is n…

M/S Godrej Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3163/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Godrej Investments Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 14(1)(2) M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Esplande House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai - 400020 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaacg1395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farrokh Irani Department By : Shri Ambuselvam

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Ambuselvam

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ourts, wherein it has been held that expenditure incurred by a Company to fulfill its statutory legal obligations is allowable in any view of the matter: (a) CIT v. Ganga Properties Ltd. (199 ITR 94, Cal.) (b) CIT v. New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. (185 ITR 564, Cal) (c) CIT v. Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd. (129 ITR 58, All.) (d) Kulgam Holdings Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, CC - 1(1) & others. Without prejudice to the contentions of the Appellant Company that such expenses are allowable u/s. 57 of the Act, it is respectfully submitted that such expenses are not liable to be disallowed under section 14A of the…

Plaza Partners, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6728/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6728/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Plaza Partners, Vs Acit, 301-303, Mercantile House, 15, Circle-52(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffp2318B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 57

…of such income in terms of Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of its claim, the assessee relied on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Taj International Jewellers (2011) 335 ITR 144 (HC)  CIT vs. New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. 185 ITR 564 (HC)  CIT vs. Trustees of the Nizam Misc's Trust 160 ITR 253 (AP). 4 Plaza Partners 8. It was argued that since the expenses incurred and claimed as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act, as per the Computation of Income enclosed are primarily, relating to running and administering the assessee firm, the same are allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of…

M/S. Ideal Hitech Engineering Equipment (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 251(2)

…18] 90 taxmann.com 307 (Mumbai - Trib.) M/s Mangilall Estates (P) Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle- 1 (3) , Kolkata, ITAT Kolkatta, ITA No.156/Kol/2015 Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Limited, Calcutta High Court, [1990] 185 ITR 564 Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ganga Properties Limited, Calcutta High Court, [1993] 199 ITR 94 Without prejudice to the above and in an alternate, no addition can be made in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) of the Act 29. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that even if the property is not treated as being used for the…

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)`, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…contemplated by section 57(iii) is more specific in character. So far as, reasonableness of the expenditure envisaged by section 57(iii) depends upon the facts of particular case. The Hon'ble Court in CIT vs New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd. (1990) 185 ITR 564, 571 (Cal.) held that it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of keeping the assessee company in operation and earning income in as much as the concept “wholly” pertains to quantum of the money expended. The Hon'ble Court further observed even if a particular expenditure is un-remunerative, su…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Wellside Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1680/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 24

…a separate line item under the head “Income from House Property” itself. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. 199 ITR 94 (Cal) and CIT Vs. New Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Ltd. (1990) 185 ITR 564 (Cal) to justify the claim of business expenditure even if there is no corresponding business income inasmuch as certain administrative expenses are bound to be incurred irrespective of carrying on of business activity. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and to re…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…in law on the subject a different view cannot be taken. The AO could not take the different view in subsequent year and the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC). He also relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Navsara Sagar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspapers Ltd. 53 ITR 250 (SC), Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. 36 ITR 329 (Bom), Radhas…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Nishith Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

Nishith M. Desai, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…e contemplated by section 57(iii) is more specific in character. So far as, reasonableness of the expenditure envisaged by section 57(iii) depends upon the facts of particular case. The Hon'ble Court in CIT vs New Savan Sugar and Good Refining Co. Ltd. (1990) 185 ITR 564, 571 (Cal.) held that it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the expenditure is wholly incurred for the purpose of keeping the assessee company in operation and earning income in as much as the concept “wholly” pertains to quantum of the money expended. The Hon'ble Court further observed even if a particular expenditure is un-remunerative, such…