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 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 367,842 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 14A Section 148 Section 147 Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)Section 142(1)Section 142(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)short deduction of tds interest on interest section 40a(2)(b)closely held company short deduction of tax business expediency section 40a(2)accumulated profits related party transaction commercial expediency section 194j

Judgments citing CIT v. Walchand & Co.

Ramesh Kumar Nangalia Katra (HUF) vs. Commissioner I.Tax - Xvi, Kolkata

ITA/449/2004HC Calcutta09 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 9, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.. … For Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Respondent The Court:- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th September, 2003 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. 1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Misdirected Itself In Law In Not Appreciating That All The Necessary Particulars For Verification Of The Allowability Of The Claim Of Deductibility Of The Commission Payment In Computation Of Income Were Found Out & Verified In The Order Of The First Appellate Authority, That Is The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Claim For Deduction Of The Commission Payment Made By The Assessing Officer & Whether The Finding Arrived At Was Perverse ?

Section 131Section 254(2)Section 260ASection 37

…OME TAX [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting the decision in SWEDESH COTTON MILLs CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that in applying 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 businessman and not of the revenue. The Rule laid down in the decision of WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD…

M/S.Sagar Tobacco & Industries Pvt.Ltd., Sagar vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 182/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 254

…rence to r.27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which, or r.11, do not exhaust the powers of the Tribunal (Hukumchand Mills Ltd. (supra)). The Apex Court, dilating on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), 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. Finally, no case for any further reduction in the turnover for AY 2004-05 stands made out before us, so that we decline interference on that count. 3.…

M/S.Sagar Tobacco & Industries Pvt.Ltd., Sagar vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 181/JAB/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 254

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. at & S India Limited, Karnataka

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

ITA 1311/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1311/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata M/S. At&S India Ltd. 12A, Industrial Area, Vs Nanjangud Mysore District Karnataka - 571301 Pan : Aaeca2930J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

For Appellant: Smt. Rituparna Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, CIT, D/R

Section 250

…similar issue:  NLC Nalco (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 57 (Kolkata Tribunal) [In this case, this Tribunal, while rendering decision, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Walchand & Co. [1967] 65 ITR 381 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT v. EKL Appliances [2012] 24 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi).]  McCann Erickson India (P.) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 21 (Delhi Tribunal)  DCIT vs Diebold Software Services (P.) Ltd. [2014] 48 taxmann.com 26 (Mumbai Tribunal)  Schneider Electric India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2…

Jurasic Refiners & Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Jurassic Finance & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jurasic Refiners & Jewels Pvt.Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [Formerly Jurassic Finance & Special Range-5, Consultants Pvt.Ltd.], 11157/1124, New Delhi. 3rd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110028. PAN-AAACJ0754B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment ye…

Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd, Chennai vs. JCIT, Company Range II, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 204/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…a that the said expenditure has not resulted in any income is devoid of cogency as the incurring of expenditure was very much incidental to the interests of the business of the assessee. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) has held that in applying the test of commercial expediency 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 businessman and not of the Revenue. 12. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd. (1965) 56 ITR…

Nalco Water India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…lue of an international transaction to nil when he was supposed to have determined the arm's length price of the international transaction. The Hon'ble High Court after examining the facts of the case held as under: "19…… 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. 14 ITA Nos.529/K/2008 & ITA No. 1256/K/200…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs 941 & 942/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd., v. Pr. CIT – Circle - 1 Unit No. 301-302, Third Floor Room No. 330, 3rd Floor Dynasty Business Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road B-Wing, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 PAN: AAICS2238R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora Department by : Ms. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date of Pronouncem…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…Court is deciding a question under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act". It was further held in 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., (19671 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…

Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7939/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7939/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rochem Separation Systems Dcit Cc-2(4) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Old Cgo Bldg (Annex), बिाम/ R. No. 802, 8Th Floor 101, Hdil Tower Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg M. K. Road Bandra (East),Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-1955-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 30/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 23/12/2016. 2. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Substantial Issues Are Covered By Earlier Orders Of Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case. The Copies Of The Orders

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…This being so, in our considered opinion, it is not open for revenue authority to sit on the armchair of a businessman so as to ascertain the quantum of deduction allowable to the assessee as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. Pvt Ltd (1967; 65 ITR 381); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs. CIT (1969; 72 ITR 612) and also in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015; 63 Taxmann.com 308). Another pertinent fact is that while framing assessment for AY 2013-14 (which is the first year of payment of rent), the lease rent paid the assessee as per the agreements has not been disturbed by Ld. AO. Therefore, on the…

Akt Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6822/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Akt Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, Ward 1(1), South Delhi, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl3085E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pulkit Saini, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 AKT Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, Ward 1(1), South Delhi, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACL3085E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pulkit Saini, CA Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11th June, 2019 of the CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Although a number o…

M/S.Anushri Engineering, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 6/JAB/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…d circumstances of the case, i.e., with a view to balance the interest of the parties inter se, guided solely by the consideration of not causing prejudice to either side and the following injunction by the Apex Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC): ‘…… the expression is intended to define the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 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. In the hierarchy of authorities the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body: its decisions on questions…

M/S Anushree Engineering, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jabalpur

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

ITA 153/JAB/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Indus Mobile Distribtion Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 915/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 915/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 281, Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aabci6304D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 22.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Effective Grounds Raised In The Appeal Relate To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Depreciation On Trademark & Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Advertisement Expenditure & Professional Charges.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

…t is deciding a question under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act". It was further held in 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 and Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), 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…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu (OSD) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2016/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussaain, CIT-DR

Section 192

…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 to be accepted. It is clear from the decisions referre…

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1972/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussaain, CIT-DR

Section 192

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

…on advertisements of their products. It was stated that benefit of such expenditure was derived entirely by the assessee company and not by an affiliate company. In support of this, the assessee had relied upon the following case laws:- CIT vs Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381. (ii) J.K. Woolen Manufacturers vs CIT 72 ITR 612. (iii) Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT 86 ITR 11. (iv) CIT vs 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)…

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)

…ableness of the expenditure has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and not that of the Revenue, as laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly in the following cases: - CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 - 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 U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) -C1T v. Rockinan Cycle In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…the point of view of a businessman as has been held in many of the judgments some of which are as under:- a. CIT Vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Limited 103 ITR 66 (SC) b. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). c. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). d. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). e. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). f. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). g. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 35 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 46. The only reason given by the Ld. AO that sales in A. Y. 2009-10 to the sister…