CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt.Ltd.(973

90 ITR 318High Court1973#8561 most cited

What is CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt.Ltd.(973 authority for?

A business is considered 'set up' when it is established and ready to start functioning as a manufacturing or business organization, distinguishing it from mere operations for setting up or commencement of business. Expenses incurred before the actual commencement but after the business is set up are allowable as revenue expenditure.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd. · 90 ITR 318 · business set up · commencement of business · expenses incurred before commencement · revenue expenditure · Section 3(1)(d) Income-tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 1961

Judgments citing CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt.Ltd.(973

Bueno Insta Pizza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4280/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 Bueno Insta Pizza Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle 78/9, 2Nd Floor, 6(1)(2) Krishna Vihar, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. R. A. Kidwal Road, Mumbai- 400020. Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan: Aagcb3987J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Karna ThakerFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Tripathi, SR. A.R
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)

…Insta Pizza Pvt. Ltd.; A. Y.2016-17 iii. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Birla Cootn Spinning And Waving Minerals (1971) 82 ITR 166 iv. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarabahi Sons Ltd reported in (1973) 90 ITR 318. 6.5. The Ld.AR submitted that in all the above decisions the ratio rendered is that, the expenses incurred for setting up of business are allowable as revenue expenditure even though they incurred before the commencement of business. He thus prayed for the expenditure to be allowed as business loss in the hands of assessee. 6.6. On the contrary t…

Viaton Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1280/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)

…t the income earned, and also to claim the deduction of the administrative charges. 13. Per contra, learned DR vehemently relied upon the impugned order and submitted that as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd., 90 ITR 318, mere acquiring the land or placing the order for machinery and raw materials, does not amount to the setup of business, but such activities are merely operation for setting up of business, and in order to say that a business is set up, it must be in a position to commence functioning as a manufacturing or business organization. According to the l…

Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing (India) Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2571/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing The Income Tax Officer, (India) Limited, Ward-4(3), Surat. Vs C-401/403, Diamond World, Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. Pan: Aaocs 9292 D Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 144ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 271

…1 which is to flow drinking water as a 19 Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing (India) Limited., Surat. construction work of canal project was still under progress. The Hon’ble High Court while referring its earlier decision in CIT Vs Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd., [1973] 90 ITR 318, (Guj); and in CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Industry [91 ITR 170 (Guj)] held that when business can be said to have been setup, the Court observed that when each one of the activities essential and vital and combined together constitute business of the assessee and things being a continuous process, all activities which go to make a busi…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

… Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commencement of business" and "setting it up" for the purposes of section 3(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood at the relevant time). What is required to be considered is the setting up of a business. It is observed that when a business is established and is ready to start b…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

… Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commencement of business" and "setting it up" for the purposes of section 3(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood at the relevant time). What is required to be considered is the setting up of a business. It is observed that when a business is established and is ready to start b…

Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

… Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commencement of business" and "setting it up" for the purposes of section 3(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood at the relevant time). What is required to be considered is the setting up of a business. It is observed that when a business is established and is ready to start b…

Amrutha Power Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1944/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 Amrutha Power Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaica 5884 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Sri S. Murali Mohan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2020

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri S. Murali Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amrutha Power Projects Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAICA 5884 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Sri S. Murali Mohan, DR Date of hearing: 22/06/2020 Date of pronouncement: 04/08/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0187/CIT (A)-1/H…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 844/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member ITA No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) (Now known as SKIL Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 SKIL House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023 PAN/GIR No.AAACH9240E (Appellant) .. Respondent) & ITA No.5817/Mum/2017 ITA No.5818/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Horizon Country Wide Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) Air India Buil…

Horizon Infrastructure Ltd(Now Known As Skil Infrastructure Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2470/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member ITA No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) (Now known as SKIL Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 SKIL House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023 PAN/GIR No.AAACH9240E (Appellant) .. Respondent) & ITA No.5817/Mum/2017 ITA No.5818/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Horizon Country Wide Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) Air India Buil…

Horizon Country Wide Logistics Ltd(Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Skil Infrastructure Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2)(Presently ACIT--6(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 5817/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member ITA No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) (Now known as SKIL Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 SKIL House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023 PAN/GIR No.AAACH9240E (Appellant) .. Respondent) & ITA No.5817/Mum/2017 ITA No.5818/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Horizon Country Wide Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) Air India Buil…

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. Horizon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 5779/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Dcit,Cc-6(3) (Now Known As Skil Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023

Section 14ASection 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, Judicial Member ITA No.2471/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Horizon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) (Now known as SKIL Air India Building Infrastructure Ltd.) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 SKIL House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 023 PAN/GIR No.AAACH9240E (Appellant) .. Respondent) & ITA No.5817/Mum/2017 ITA No.5818/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Horizon Country Wide Vs. DCIT,CC-6(3) Air India Buil…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jatra Ruchi Cosmetics (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5877/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Jatra Ruchi Cosmetics Circle-13(1), (India) Pvt. Ltd, Cr Building, Shop No. 1 To 4, World New Delhi Trade Centre, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccj2047F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…is relevant for the business of the Assessee. Therefore, the facts in the case law cited by the Ld. AO are different and distinguishable from the facts of the Appellant. 3. CIT vs. Sa Sons (P.) Ltd. In the decision, new business The Appellant business (1973) (90 ITR 318) (Guj.) of assessee was of was set up from the day manufacturing scientific of its incorporation as the instrument and communication required work necessary equipment and it could not be for the purpose was said to be ready to discharge completed during the the function until the preoperative period. The machinery necessary for the Appellant had t…

Wondervalue Realty Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6059/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6059/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Wondervalue Realty Developers P. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3)(4), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, 505, Ceejay House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 New Marine Lines, Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacw 8249 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)Section 56

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6059/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Wondervalue Realty Developers P. Ltd. ITO, Ward 5(3)(4), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, 505, Ceejay House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 New Marine Lines, Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACW 8249 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Mandar Vaidya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनव…

CIT v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt.Ltd.(973 (90 ITR 318) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax