CIT v. T.S.Hajee Moosa & Co.

153 ITR 422High Court1985#4800 most cited

What is CIT v. T.S.Hajee Moosa & Co. authority for?

For an expenditure to be deductible under Section 37(1), the motive behind it must be solely for promoting the business, not merely for personal or other indirect benefits.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. · Section 37(1) · expenditure for business · motive of expenditure · wholly and exclusively for business

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80IBSection 10CCBSection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 153a proceedingsexplanation to section 37section 158bdgoing concernprohibited by lawbusiness expediencyinitial assessment yearsection 30section 246section 80icsection 246a

Judgments citing CIT v. T.S.Hajee Moosa & Co.

Echjay Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 45, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5245/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Assessment Year :2006-07) Assessment Year :2010-11) Assessment Year :2011-12) Assessment Year :2012-13) Assessment Year :2013-14) Assessment Year :2014-15) Assessment Year :2010-11) & Assessment Year :2012-13) M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle- 83, Bajaj Bhavan 45,/Dy.Commissioner Of Nariman Point Income Tax-Circle 8(2) Mumbai – 400 023 Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1157B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ioner (Appeals) con-firmed the said disallowance following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bombay Mineral Supply Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 437/ 23 Taxman 549 and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. [1985] 153 ITR 422/ 22 Taxman 250. The Tribunal in further appeal following the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. 2nd ITO [1986] 18 ITD 226 (Bom.), allowed the claim of the assessee. According to the revenue, Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur accompanied her husband Shri Raunaq Singh, chairman-cum- managing director of the company not for…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…right, nay duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous considerations.” He further relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of T.S.Hajee Moosa & Co.(153 ITR 422) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd (166 ITR 836) and submitted that the expression “wholly and exclusively” used in sec. 37(1) of the Act have been explained to mean that the term “wholly” refers to the quantum of expenditure and “exclusively” refers to the motive or objective of expe…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

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

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…m of expenditure- The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction. CIT Vs. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. (Mad.) 153 ITR 422) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs CIT (Kar) 166 ITR 836 Siddho Mal & Sons Vs. ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that payments sent abroad are not for business consideration and not related to business. It is not proved by assessee that any services were done by these companies for assessee ei…

Md. Farooque Ansari, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1769/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kumar Sardar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50C

…d for purposes of business or not. The Hon’ble High Court considered the decisions rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Bombay Mineral Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 437 (Guj) and of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. (1985) 153 ITR 422 (Mad), but, the Hon,ble Kerala High Court held that the ratio laid down by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts does not apply to the case on hand and applied the finding given by the Bombay Special Bench in GLAXO LABORATORIES (INDIA) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 13. Let us examine the finding of the Bombay Special Bench in GLAXO LABORATORIES (INDI…