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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Walchand & Co.?

314 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Walchand & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 148, Section 147, Section 40A(2)(b), Section 40A(3).

CIT v. Walchand & Co. (65 ITR 381)

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 510/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, conscious that it could be argued that an invalid approval may not fail an assessment per se, but render it liable to be set aside for curing the defe…

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 509/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, conscious that it could be argued that an invalid approval may not fail an assessment per se, but render it liable to be set aside for curing the defe…

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. The DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed, and it’s stay applications dismissed as infructuous

ITA 508/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Paven Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…not the view that the parties may take of their rights in the matter (CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC); Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)). The Tribunal, as explained in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), is to deal with and determine all questions which arise out of the subject-matter of an appeal in the light of evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. We are, in this context, conscious that it could be argued that an invalid approval may not fail an assessment per se, but render it liable to be set aside for curing the defe…

K P Muhammed Ali, Calicut vs. ITO ( International Taxation), Kozhikode

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

ITA 1008/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Manomohan Dask.P. Muhammed Ali Income Tax Officer K.P. House: 19/1866 (International Taxation) Chalappuram Vs. Kozhikode Calicut 673002 [Pan:Agnpm9397F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Palakkal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

…nt on us to opine there-upon to the extent the same admits of no two views, i.e., is in complete consistence and harmony with the facts of the case and the law in the matter. We do this taking guidance from the decision in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), wherein it stands held that the Tribunal is to deal with and determine the questions which arise out of subject matter of the appeal in light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. The subject land is stated to have been acquired prior to 01.04.2001. Where so, without doubt, the fair market value as on that date shal…

Gurcharan Singh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3433/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Gurcharan Singh Bhatia, Vs. Acit, C-9, Westend Colony, Circle 47(1), New Delhi-1100 21 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) (Pan:Ahnpb4697E) Assessee By : S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2024 Order Per Challa Nagendra Prasad:This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 37(1)Section 68

…3) As a business entity, Assessee has the unfettered right to arrange his affairs according to his prudence and discretion. Any objection by the Revenue in this regard is inconsequential and redundant. The apex Court decisions in Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 and J.K. 17 Woollen Manufacturers (1969) 72 ITR 612 stand solidly to support this proposition. 14) The CIT(A) s observation regarding the interest charge on the top up loan of Rs. 22.79 lacs from ICICI is ex facie erroneous, in as much as, the property has been acquired out of an interest bearing loans and so interest has rightly to be allowed ag…

Navayuga Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 106/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 12(2)Section 57

…iding a question under Section 12(2) of the Income Tax Act". It was further held in Page 2 of 6 this case that "it is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned". In CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc., [1967] 65 ITR 381, it was held by the Supreme Court that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. It was further observed that the rule that…

Navayuga Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1724/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 37

…’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tudor India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 450 (Gujarat) which in turn was rendered in the light of the decisions reported in Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, [1951] 20 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc., [1967] 65 ITR 381 and Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand, [1938] 6 ITR 636, wherein it is held that earning profit in any particular year is not a sine qua non for allowance of any expenditure. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. According to the Memorandum and Articles of Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 1723 & 1724/Hyd/2018 A…

Navayuga Road Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1723/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 37

…’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tudor India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 450 (Gujarat) which in turn was rendered in the light of the decisions reported in Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, [1951] 20 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc., [1967] 65 ITR 381 and Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand, [1938] 6 ITR 636, wherein it is held that earning profit in any particular year is not a sine qua non for allowance of any expenditure. 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. According to the Memorandum and Articles of Page 3 of 8 ITA Nos. 1723 & 1724/Hyd/2018 A…

Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 924/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 28

…rudence. It is well settled that the revenue cannot dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur (Eastern Investment Ltd 20 ITR 1 (SC), Walchand & Co 65 ITR 381 (SC) followed). Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same. 13. In light of the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted that the approach of the TPO is not proper and the same should be held as not valid in law. 14. The ld. DR relied…

M/S. Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 28

…rudence. It is well settled that the revenue cannot dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur (Eastern Investment Ltd 20 ITR 1 (SC), Walchand & Co 65 ITR 381 (SC) followed). Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same. 13. In light of the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted that the approach of the TPO is not proper and the same should be held as not valid in law. 14. The ld. DR relied…

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…issue, though not raised before us, stares one on the face of it and, therefore, needs to be addressed; we discerning the issue arising as the capital gain assessable for the current year on sale of land. As explained in CIT v. Walchand& Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), the Tribunal, final fact finding authority under the Act, is to deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject matter of appeal in light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. The matter accordingly shall travel back to the file of the AO for considering the validity of the assessment of capital gai…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1718/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri KC DevdasFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan. Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ion to the following decisions : 1. PCIT Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited – 422 ITR 164 (Gujarat High Court). 2. Sassoon J. David & Co., (P) Ltd Vs. CIT – 118 ITR 261 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) 3. CIT Vs. Walchand and Co., (P) Ltd., - 65 ITR 381 (Hon’ble Supreme Court). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee company submitted a return of income on 25/08/2009, declaring an income of Rs.27,16,63,830/-. The assessment was taken for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notices were issued calling for details. The assessee vide its letter dated…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

…l findings as qua STCG. As is well-settled, the Tribunal is to deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject matter of appeal, in light of the evidences, and consistently with the justice of the case (CIT vs. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381). The subject matter of appeal, again, there is no gainsaying, flowing from the ratio afore-stated, is to broadly construed (CIT vs. Edward Keventer (Successor) Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 200 (Del))(refer para 2 of the order). There is no estoppel against law, and the proceedings under the Act are not in the nature of lis between the parties nor an…

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 206/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dask.P. Johny Asst. Cit, Manappuram House Circle – 2(1) Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Thrissur 680307 Sakthan Thampuran Nagar [Pan:Acgpj4958G] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, K.P. Johny Circle – 2(1) Manappuram House Aayakar Bhavan Hospital Road, Chalakkudy Vs. Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Thrissur 680307 Thrissur 680001 [Pan: Acgpj4958G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate (with Smt. Divya Ravindran, Adv. with him)For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148(1)Section 69

…l findings as qua STCG. As is well-settled, the Tribunal is to deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject matter of appeal, in light of the evidences, and consistently with the justice of the case (CIT vs. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381). The subject matter of appeal, again, there is no gainsaying, flowing from the ratio afore-stated, is to broadly construed (CIT vs. Edward Keventer (Successor) Pvt. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 200 (Del))(refer para 2 of the order). There is no estoppel against law, and the proceedings under the Act are not in the nature of lis between the parties nor an…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Shri Subhash Hastimal Lodha, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 750/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 54B

…inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that the practice of recording a decision without reasons in support cannot, but be deprecated. In S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594], the Supreme Court held that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by i…

M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2396/BANG/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Udupa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…eld that it is well settled that the revenue cannot dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur (Eastern Investment Ltd 20 ITR 1 (SC), Walchand & Co 65 ITR 381 (SC) followed). Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same. In light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the stand taken by the assessee in this regard deserves Page 11 of 15 to be accepted. It is clear from the de…

Kalburgi Cement Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 573/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Kalyanasundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 270ASection 92C

…ssity of incurring expenditure. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241/209 Taxman 200/24 taxmann.com 199, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 261/1 Taxman 485 (SC) held that the TPO cannot determine ALP at nil by holding that there was no need to incur such expenditure. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 20…

Dhawani Nainesh Pastagia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 324/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhwani Nainesh Pastagia, I.T.O., 55, Mitrali Co-Op Housing Society, Anand Ward-1(3)(6), Vs. Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Surat. Pan No. Arzpp 3649 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)

…stagia Vs ITO expenses of employees cost/salary were also incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. To support such submission, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) and Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 227 (SC). 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee, on the disallowance of commission payment held that the assessee failed to furnish copy of agreement with the person to whom commission was paid alongwith terms related to rate of commission and upheld the actio…

Shaju Ninan John, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Circle- International Taxation, Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 688/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma K, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…i Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28 (SC), it stands clarified that in appreciating facts, they must be considered not in isolation, but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. In CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), it was held that the Tribunal is to deal with and determine questions which arise out of the subject-matter of the appeal in the light of the evidence, and consistently with the justice of the case. 3.3 We, for the reasons aforestated, based on the material on record and the explanations furnished, find the assessee’s claim as wholly unprove…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 36/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Dcit, Corporate Circle Corporate Circle - Vs. Grid Corporation Of O Grid Corporation Of Orissa 1(1), Bhubaneswar. 1(1), Bhubaneswar. Ltd., Ltd., Janapath, Janapath, Bhubanesw Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, Ars Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

…e Company has not acted as a prudential businessman as per the ratio P a g e 5 | 12 Assessment Year : 2013-14 laid down in the cases of Voltamp Transformers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [1981) 129 ITR 105/5 Taxman 253 (Guj.); and CIT vs. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) where it was observed that yardstick will have to be taken from the businessman point of view but the businessman must be a prudent businessman. 29. The Commercial expediency would include such purpose as is expected by the assessee to advance its business interest and may include measures taken for preservation, protection or advancement of…

CIT v. Walchand & Co.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Walchand & Co.

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

Kk Leisure & Tourism International (P) Ltd, Kannur vs. The DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

K P Muhammed Ali, Calicut vs. ITO ( International Taxation), Kozhikode

Gurcharan Singh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-47(1), New Delhi

Navayuga Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

Navayuga Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

Navayuga Road Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore

M/S. Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore

Smt Sunitha Prem Victor, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Trivandrum

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Drs Logistics Private Limited, Secunderabad

The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur vs. Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur

Sri.K.P. Johny, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Thrissur

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Shri Subhash Hastimal Lodha, Pune

M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

Kalburgi Cement Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Dhawani Nainesh Pastagia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

Shaju Ninan John, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Circle- International Taxation, Kochi

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar