CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd.

214 ITR 1High Court1995#2970 most cited

What is CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure incurred for obtaining a loan is deductible as revenue expenditure if it is for commercial expediency, assessed from a businessman's point of view.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd. · commercial expediency · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · businessman's point of view · section 37 · loan expenditure · interest on borrowing

Also reported as

81 Taxmann 334

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 37Section 40(a)(ia)Section 56

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediencycapital expendituresection 37section 143transferprescribedcompanysection 14section 143(3)indiabusinessperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd.

Paradise Infrastructure, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 871/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Ao.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…and purpose of the loan. The purpose for which the loan was required is irrelevant to the consideration of the question whether the expenditure for obtaining the loan is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure – (c) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view – Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary or commercially expedient or no…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जाेधपुर न्यायपीठ] जाेधपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ‘DB’ JODHPUR. Jh HkkLdju chvkj] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI BASKARAN BR, AM & HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 30/JODH/2020 Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Wagad Construction Co., Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Plot No. 15, Near Bhati Engineering Works, Udaipur. Titari Bus Stand. Udaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAAFW 2213 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 119/JODH/2020 Ass…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7131/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37

…ification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 ITR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 10 (Cal High Court) v. CIT vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid su…

Asstt. CIT, Cir- 7, Nagpur vs. M/S. Newquest Corporation Ltd., Chandrapur

ITA 328/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 40

…sale of shares is to be considered from the point of view of businessman and not subjective standard of Revenue Officer. The ld. AR relied on following case laws:- 1. CIT vsDaulat Ram Rawatmal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) 2. CIT vs Sales Magnesite Pvt. Ltd.(1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bom) 3. CIT vs Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 214 ITR 112 (Ker.) 3.5 The ld. AR further submitted that purchase & sale of shares are not disputed. The loss suffered by the assessee had been claimed to be carried forward and there is no revenue advantage to assessee for the year under consideration as loss has claimed to be carried forward. The…

DCIT CC 44, Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai

ITA 3039/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92

…ot be maintained anticipating the requirements of the assessing officer at subsequent date. 12 M/s. Sopariwala Exports M/s. Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. 5.9.31. The appellant has relied upon the following decisions. i) CIT vs Sales Magnesite Pvt Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bom) ii) Amarjothi Pictures vs CIT (1968) 69 ITR 755 (Mad) iii) CIT vs Rajarani Exports Pvt Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 84 (Calcutta) iv) Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 11 (SC) v) CIT vs Nestle India Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 103 (Delhi) vi)JK Woollen Manufactures vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 In respect of the argument that once the payment is…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co.Ltd. 103 ITR 666. (v) Sassoon J David and Co.P. Ltd. vs CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). (vi) CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). (vii) SA Builders Limited vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). (viii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P. Ltd. 214 ITR 1(Bom). (ix) JR Patel & Sons P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 69 ITR 782 (Guj) . (x) CIT vs. Khambhatta Family Trust (215 Taxman 602) (Guj). (xi) Star India P. Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 (TM) (xii) National Panasonic (India) Ltd. vs. JCIT: ITA 3238/Del/2002 (Del) (xiii) Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT (Del)(2007) 111 ITR 498 (Del). (xiv) Sony India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT: 114 ITD…

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)

…v. CIT: 118 ITR 261 (SC) [Pg. 228 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC) IPg. 230 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07) • SA Builders v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) [Pg. 236 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd.: 214 ITR 1 (Bom) • J.R. Patel & Sons (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 69 ITR 782 (Guj) • CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) [Pg. 243 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del) • Star India (P) Ltd. : 103 ITD 73 (TM) • National Panasonic (India) Ltd. v. JCIT: ITA 3238/Del/2002 (Del) • Nestle India Ltd.…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…otel (P) Ltd.; x) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat); xi) CIT vs. M/s Shriram Builcons Ltd. ITA No.39,53,60,65 of 2006. xii) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Karnataka); xiii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bombay); xiv) CIT vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 222 (Calcutta); xv) CIT vs. Peico Electronics & Electricals (1992) 107 CTR Cal 240; xvi) Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 528 (Ker.); xvii) Ebrahim Aboobaker vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 664 (Bombay); xviii) Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Inspecting assistant Commissi…

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

Appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3264/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

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

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v/s Core Health Care Ltd.(2 TR 194), S.A.Builders Ltd. v/s CIT (288 ITR 01), CIT v/s Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (103 ITR 66), Bombay Samachar Ltd. (74 ITR 723), CIT v/s Sales Magnesite (Pvt) Ltd (1995) (214 ITR 1) (Born), CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) (38 ITR 601), Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (1965) (56 ITR 52), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (1967) (65 ITR 1) Cal), JK Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v/s CIT (1969) (72 ITR 296) (All), CIT vis Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd (2002) (254 ITR 377) (Del.), DCIT v/s M/s Parry And Company…

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd, D-25, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 329/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K.. Gupta , CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(SC) Borrowing must be for the purpose of business: The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making of earning income" (d) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view — Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary or 9 ITA 327/JP/2019 & 2 Ors M/…

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. D-25, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 328/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K.. Gupta , CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(SC) Borrowing must be for the purpose of business: The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making of earning income" (d) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view — Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary or 9 ITA 327/JP/2019 & 2 Ors M/…

M/S. Kalyan Awas Vikas Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K.. Gupta , CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(SC) Borrowing must be for the purpose of business: The expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of making of earning income" (d) CIT Vs. Sales Megnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1/81 Taxman 33 (Bom.) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view — Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary or 9 ITA 327/JP/2019 & 2 Ors M/…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6322/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiat& T Communication Services Vs. Dcit, India Pvt Ltd, Circle-2(1), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan: Aacca8033E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153(1)Section 40

…ification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: b. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) c. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 d. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) e. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) f. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) g. 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid s…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Cytespace Research Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3133/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ss. It may not bring in results in the sense of increased income and yet a commercial man may think that those expenses are necessary from a commercial point of view for the purpose of the business." • Commissioner of Income-tax v Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd. (214 ITR 1)(Bom) "The question whether expenditure incurred for the purposes of business must be viewed in the larger context of business necessity or commercial expediency. No abstract or pedantic view can be taken in the matter". 1.21 Based on the above judicial precedents, the Assessee would like to emphasize that the learned AO should not examine or quest…

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7001/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…soning/justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid su…

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7115/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…soning/justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid su…

M/S at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5535/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…soning/justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid su…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…fication of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid s…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6703/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 145(2)Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 ITR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 10 (Cal High Court) v. CIT vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the appellant has actually incurred the aforesaid su…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR
Section 153(1)Section 40

…ification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) ITA 1015 & 1779/D/2015 Assessment year 2008-09 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that where the…