CIT v. Rajaram Bondekar

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Livewire Programme Trdg. Co P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

…2002) (254 ITR 377) (Del.), DCIT v/s M/s Parry And Company Ltd. (2008- TIOL-555- ITAT-MAD), Hatiwala Silk Mills v/s Assessing Officer (2002) (19 TT] 284) (Ahm.), CIT vis Walchand and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1967) (65 ITR 381) (SC), and CIT v/s Rajararn Bandekar (1994) 208 ITR 503 (Bom). As per the finding recorded by the CIT(A), M/s Star India Pvt. Ltd. is not coming within the purview of Section 40A(2), therefore, it cannot be said that interest so paid to a related party so as to avoid burden of tax on the assessee. The detailed findings of the CIT(A) recorded at para 2.3 and 2.3.1 has not been controverted by departmen…

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

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

…wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Identical ratio was laid down in Bombay Steam Navigation Company vs CIT (1965) 56 ITR 52, 61 (Supreme Court), CIT vs Delhi Safe Deposit company Ltd.(133 ITR 756)(Supreme Court), CIT vs Rajaram Bandekar (208 ITR 503)(Bom.) and B.K. Khanna & Company Pvt. Ltd. (247 ITR 705)(Del.). There are certain decision, where the Hon'ble Court even went to the extent, where the expenditure, in the course of trade, which is un- remunerative is none the less a proper deduction if wholly and exclusively made for the purposes of trade. Our view find support from the dec…

M/S. Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 is dismissed

…nder section 37(1) and in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Delhi Safe Deposit Co Ltd [(1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC)]. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay Court, in the case of CIT Vs Rajaram Bondekar [(1994) 208 ITR 503 (Bom)], in support of the proposition that the mere fact that expenditure incurred by the assessee benefits a third party would not lead to disallowance as long as the expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assesses. These submissions, however, did not impress the Assessing Officer. He noted that Sush…

M/S. Stock Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 is dismissed

…nder section 37(1) and in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Delhi Safe Deposit Co Ltd [(1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC)]. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay Court, in the case of CIT Vs Rajaram Bondekar [(1994) 208 ITR 503 (Bom)], in support of the proposition that the mere fact that expenditure incurred by the assessee benefits a third party would not lead to disallowance as long as the expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assesses. These submissions, however, did not impress the Assessing Officer. He noted that Sush…