CIT v. Walchand & Co.

65 ITR 381Supreme Court of India1967#246 most cited

What is CIT v. Walchand & Co. authority for?

The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.

314

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Walchand & Co. · 65 ITR 381 · Section 40A(2) · Section 40A(3) · business expediency · commercial expediency · reasonableness of expenditure · necessity of expenditure · businessman's point of view · onus on assessee · disallowance of expenditure · revenue dictating expenses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 148Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 142(1)Section 142(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)short deduction of tdsinterest on interestsection 40a(2)(b)closely held companyshort deduction of taxbusiness expediencysection 40a(2)accumulated profitsrelated party transactioncommercial expediencysection 194j

Judgments citing CIT v. Walchand & Co.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…enue's Arguments -Proposition A: The Supreme Court's Doctrine 11. on Business Judgment Does Not Protect Unsubstantiated Expenditure The CIT(A) and assessee rely heavily on CIT v. Dhanrajgiriji Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544 SC), Walchand& Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (65 ITR 381 SC), and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (72 ITR 612 SC) for the proposition that revenue cannot prescribe business expenditure. However, these cases do not shield unsubstantiated or uncommercial expenditure. A careful reading reveals:FromWalchand (65 ITR 381 SC): "It is not open to the Department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…enue's Arguments -Proposition A: The Supreme Court's Doctrine 11. on Business Judgment Does Not Protect Unsubstantiated Expenditure The CIT(A) and assessee rely heavily on CIT v. Dhanrajgiriji Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544 SC), Walchand& Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (65 ITR 381 SC), and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (72 ITR 612 SC) for the proposition that revenue cannot prescribe business expenditure. However, these cases do not shield unsubstantiated or uncommercial expenditure. A careful reading reveals:FromWalchand (65 ITR 381 SC): "It is not open to the Department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 40

…enue's Arguments -Proposition A: The Supreme Court's Doctrine 11. on Business Judgment Does Not Protect Unsubstantiated Expenditure The CIT(A) and assessee rely heavily on CIT v. Dhanrajgiriji Raja Narasingirji (91 ITR 544 SC), Walchand& Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (65 ITR 381 SC), and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (72 ITR 612 SC) for the proposition that revenue cannot prescribe business expenditure. However, these cases do not shield unsubstantiated or uncommercial expenditure. A careful reading reveals:FromWalchand (65 ITR 381 SC): "It is not open to the Department to prescribe what expenditure an assessee should…

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

ITA 7855/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 14A

…hat in preceding assessment years, similar payments made by the assessee to Rediffusion have been allowed even in scrutiny assessments. Thereafter, relying upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Walchand and Company Private Limited 65 ITR 381 (SC) and CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), ld. First appellate authority concluded that assessee’s claim of having incurred the 15 ITA Nos.7852 to 7855/Mum/2025 & CO Nos.06 to 09/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 14-15, 16-17 & 17-18) Raillis India Ltd. expenditure for business purpose stands established. Accordingly, he delet…

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

ITA 7854/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 14A

…hat in preceding assessment years, similar payments made by the assessee to Rediffusion have been allowed even in scrutiny assessments. Thereafter, relying upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Walchand and Company Private Limited 65 ITR 381 (SC) and CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), ld. First appellate authority concluded that assessee’s claim of having incurred the 15 ITA Nos.7852 to 7855/Mum/2025 & CO Nos.06 to 09/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 14-15, 16-17 & 17-18) Raillis India Ltd. expenditure for business purpose stands established. Accordingly, he delet…

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

ITA 7853/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 14A

…hat in preceding assessment years, similar payments made by the assessee to Rediffusion have been allowed even in scrutiny assessments. Thereafter, relying upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Walchand and Company Private Limited 65 ITR 381 (SC) and CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), ld. First appellate authority concluded that assessee’s claim of having incurred the 15 ITA Nos.7852 to 7855/Mum/2025 & CO Nos.06 to 09/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 14-15, 16-17 & 17-18) Raillis India Ltd. expenditure for business purpose stands established. Accordingly, he delet…

ACIT- 8(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RALLIS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

06/Mum/2026

ITA 7852/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.AR
Section 14A

…hat in preceding assessment years, similar payments made by the assessee to Rediffusion have been allowed even in scrutiny assessments. Thereafter, relying upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Walchand and Company Private Limited 65 ITR 381 (SC) and CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narsingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC), ld. First appellate authority concluded that assessee’s claim of having incurred the 15 ITA Nos.7852 to 7855/Mum/2025 & CO Nos.06 to 09/Mum/2026 (A.Ys. 2013-14, 14-15, 16-17 & 17-18) Raillis India Ltd. expenditure for business purpose stands established. Accordingly, he delet…

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…e Incurred in peace meals on day-to-day basis as per need of business. As per nature of small expenses, no third-party verification is possible as these are petty cash expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. Limited reported in 65 ITR 381 (SC), where in the lordships held as under :- 10 M/s Shivansh Infrestate Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 "In apply the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure 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 businessmen an…

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

…needs will have to be examined from the assessee's point of view and not from the department's view. To support the above proposition of law, reliance is placed in the following decisions:  S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd.[1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 (SC)  J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT[1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC)  Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC)  Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Del)  Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 129 ITR 105 (Guj)  Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 236 (Del.);  DCIT vs…

MODI HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5315/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Modi Home Products Limited Income Tax Officer, Second Floor, Akash Ganga, Ward 5(2)(3), Vs. 89, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400026 Pan No. Aaacm 4151 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jain (Virtually
Section 143(3)

…oc disallowances are hoc disallowances are impermissible—as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [(1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC)] 7) 65 ITR 381 (SC)]—nevertheless upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee had not upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee had not upheld the disallowance on the ground that the assessee had not fully substantiated the claims. fully substantiated the claims. 5.2 We are unable to concur with the approach of the…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s excessive. Further, the necessity of incurring an expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s excessive. Further, the necessity of incurring an expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s excessive. Further, the necessity of incurring an expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s excessive. Further, the necessity of incurring an expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…s excessive. Further, the necessity of incurring an expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 5793/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…rowed funds were in fact utilized for the business purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfe…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2369/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…rowed funds were in fact utilized for the business purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfe…

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1893/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…rowed funds were in fact utilized for the business purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfe…

ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 5534/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…rowed funds were in fact utilized for the business purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfe…

ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…rowed funds were in fact utilized for the business purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfe…

Showing 1–20 of 314 · Page 1 of 16

...
CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381) — Cited in 314 Judgments | BharatTax