CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd.

331 ITR 401High Court2011#7870 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1872: Section 62Section 1963: Rule 29Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 1961: 143(3)Section 1961: 144C

Issues it is cited on

specified domestic transactionbusiness expediencycommercial expediencysection 92income from other sourcestransferpersoncompanysection 143businessindiainterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR, HIGHCOURT CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. LATE VANDANA AGARWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1237/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…enditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. In the case of CIT v Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H) the court has ruled that the tax authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. The appellant while relying on the above judicial decisions has stated that the law is very well settled that how to manage financial affairs is the prerogative of the assessee. 15. With respect to the observ…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1519/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

…166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) 18. Ld. Sr. Counsel, refered to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India &Anr., 341 ITR 1, wherein, the apex Court after considering the jurisprudenc…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1518/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

…166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) 18. Ld. Sr. Counsel, refered to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India &Anr., 341 ITR 1, wherein, the apex Court after considering the jurisprudenc…

DCIT CENT. CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. K. RAHEJA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

…g motive of entering into this type of transaction. Various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents clearly get attracted to this Court." 35. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (331 ITR 401) has observed 36 ITA. No.2218/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. as under:— '23. In view of our aforesaid discussion and pronunciation of law, as referred to above, the question referred for consideration by the larger Bench can very well be answered by opining that the Assessing Officer or the appellate authorities and even the courts ca…

K RAHEJA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR-4(2), `MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1970/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

…g motive of entering into this type of transaction. Various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents clearly get attracted to this Court." 35. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (331 ITR 401) has observed 36 ITA. No.2218/Mum/2021 A.Y.2018-19 K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. as under:— '23. In view of our aforesaid discussion and pronunciation of law, as referred to above, the question referred for consideration by the larger Bench can very well be answered by opining that the Assessing Officer or the appellate authorities and even the courts ca…

ACIT -3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RIDEEMA TOLL P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 521/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…w cause as to why the interest on the borrowing not be disallowed as the funds have been diverted for non business use. It was submitted by assessee that as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd 2009 [331 ITR 401], nearly because borrowing cost of investment in the share to sister company yielding dividend less than the interest paid on the borrowings such interest cannot be disallowed. The Assessing Officer further justified the commercial expediency of making investments and submitted that this is to be seen from the point view of the assessee rather th…

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…IT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) •CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd., 82 ITR 166 (SC) •Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U'P: 1181TR 200 (SC). •CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del HC) •CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd., 331 ITR 401 (P&H HC) (FB) • Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Ludhiana [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 308(SC)]" Moenus Textile P. Ltd. 9.2 We further find that ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the facts of the issue relating to legal and professional charges, commercial expediency and the settled legal principles deleted the disallowance of…

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…TR 166 (SC) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) -C1T v. Rockinan Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) -CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. : 345 ITR 241 (Del HC) It is a settled position that the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business would be allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, even if it results in a direct or incidental benefit to a third party. Reliance is placed on the following decis…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…m their own point but that of a prudent businessman. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Rajan Nanda (2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del); ii) Vodafone South Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 410 (Del); and iii) CIT vs. Rockman Cycle Industries (P) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H). 15. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 16. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the parties, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions c…

SHRI KAILASH CHAND SONI C/O- S.L. PODDAR & COMPANY E-3A, KANTI CHANDRA RAOD, BANI PARK, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 57

…ointed out that the assessee had utilized the loan amount for its personal use. As per the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 337 (Del), CIT vs. Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 401 and CIT vs. Special Prints Ltd. reported in 356 ITR 404 wherein it has been held as under:- “the learned assessing officer cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and 13 Shri Kailash Chand Soni, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Jaipur assume the role to decide how much reasonable exp…

PADAMSHI MADAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3999/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…it is stated that in Vipul, interest-free advances are more than interest-free funds. And in Padanshi, the interest-free funds are more than interest-free advances. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H) and CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC). The Ld. counsel further submits that there is no such in section 57(iii) that interest claimed can be restricted to the extent of interest received. The only condition is whether the interest paid is genuine or not. No finding as to whether the interest claimed of Rs.8,11,868/- is a…

VIPUL PADAMSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3998/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…it is stated that in Vipul, interest-free advances are more than interest-free funds. And in Padanshi, the interest-free funds are more than interest-free advances. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H) and CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC). The Ld. counsel further submits that there is no such in section 57(iii) that interest claimed can be restricted to the extent of interest received. The only condition is whether the interest paid is genuine or not. No finding as to whether the interest claimed of Rs.8,11,868/- is a…

M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) Page 15 - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd.: 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) 15. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd., 345 ITR 241 (Del) and CIT v. Reebok India Co. Ltd., 374 ITR 118 (Del). It was further con…

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

…SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) • CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011(Del HC) • CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) • CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. (supra), (Del) It is respectfully submitted that as long as an item of expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the appellant, whether or no…

CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. (331 ITR 401) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax