Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT

237 ITR 617Supreme Court of India1999#3512 most cited

What is Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee must discharge the primary onus of providing relevant documents to support a claim of expenditure, and reliance on case law is misplaced if this onus is not met.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dalmia Cement Ltd v CIT · section 38 · expenditure claim · onus of proof · relevant documents · CIT v Sitaldas Tirathdas · CIT v Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd

Also reported as

104 Taxmann 97

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1A)Section 195Section 38Section 131Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 38corpus fundright to receivemliinterest on securitiessection 201(1a)section 194csection 195assessee in defaultsection 201(1)advance taxtax deducted at source

Judgments citing Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2002/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…me as his own. The case is one of application of a portion of the income to discharge an obligation and not; a case in which by an overriding charge the assessee became only a collector of another’s income.’’ In Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 104 Taxman 97/237 ITR 617 (SC) assessee-owner of factory had, by an agreement dated 24.07.1962, agreed to sell same to ‘M’ and agreement, provided that profit from factories from 30.09.1962 would be for benefit of transferee on completion of sale transaction, though actual transfer of ITA Nos. 1731, 1732, 2001, 54 2002, 5827 & 6114/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 913, 914 & 1253/Del/2…

M/S. Emaar Mgf Construction Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1731/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…me as his own. The case is one of application of a portion of the income to discharge an obligation and not; a case in which by an overriding charge the assessee became only a collector of another’s income.’’ In Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 104 Taxman 97/237 ITR 617 (SC) assessee-owner of factory had, by an agreement dated 24.07.1962, agreed to sell same to ‘M’ and agreement, provided that profit from factories from 30.09.1962 would be for benefit of transferee on completion of sale transaction, though actual transfer of ITA Nos. 1731, 1732, 2001, 54 2002, 5827 & 6114/Del/2014 ITA Nos. 913, 914 & 1253/Del/2…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…of Associated Power [supra] is well taken. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed in various judgments, to name a few, CIT Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd 244 ITR 738, Bijli Cotton Mills [P] Ltd 116 ITR 60, Dalmia Cement Ltd 237 ITR 617, etc. All these judicial decisions have been discussed elaborately by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In so far as the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, the ld. DR strongly supported the find…

DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Drs Industries Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 2731/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2731/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Drs Industries Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1, 1321, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Coimbatore – 641 062. Pan: Aabcd0553B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.17/Chny/2018 (In Ita No. 2731/Chny/2017) M/S. Drs Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Dcit, 1321, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore – 641 062 Coimbatore Pan: Aabcd0553B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. R. Anitha, Jcit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Ramaswamy, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 10.04.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: 10.04.2018For Respondent: Shri G. Ramaswamy, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37Section 40

…and therefore, profits also belongs to them and further reiterated that, the concept of 'income by overriding title' is applied here. 7.4. In support of its argument, the appellant has relied on the following case law:- (i) Dalmia Cement Ltd., vs.CIT (1999) 237 ITR 617 (SC) (ii) JIT & pal x-rays (p) Ltd., U CIT (2004) 134 Taxman 62 (All) wherein it has been held that, the going concern purchased by the assesse and hence it is an integral part of the sale deed and the sale deed specifically mentions that the amount in question is charged on the net profits of the assesse company and CO No.17/Chny/2018 the asses…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…d by the subsidiary for business purposes, hence, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. According to the CIT(Appeals), this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). Further, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee advanced funds to the extent of 7211.29 lakhs to its subsidiary companies wherein some of them are 100% wholly owned subsidiaries and engaged in the expansion of assessee’s business in a Multi Model Logistics and Stevedoring activities. The CIT(Appeals) also observed that over and above, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…d by the subsidiary for business purposes, hence, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. According to the CIT(Appeals), this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). Further, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee advanced funds to the extent of 7211.29 lakhs to its subsidiary companies wherein some of them are 100% wholly owned subsidiaries and engaged in the expansion of assessee’s business in a Multi Model Logistics and Stevedoring activities. The CIT(Appeals) also observed that over and above, t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…d by the subsidiary for business purposes, hence, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. According to the CIT(Appeals), this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). Further, the CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee advanced funds to the extent of 7211.29 lakhs to its subsidiary companies wherein some of them are 100% wholly owned subsidiaries and engaged in the expansion of assessee’s business in a Multi Model Logistics and Stevedoring activities. The CIT(Appeals) also observed that over and above, t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…of the assessee company, there cannot be any disallowance towards notional interest as held by the Supreme Court in the M/s.S.A Builders (288 ITR 1). Further, this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). 7.14. It is also demonstrated by the assessee that the assessee and it is having of its own funds to advance to the assessee, i.e. out of fixed deposit maturity proceeds and also form the export packaging credit, which was internally generated funds and having no interest borrowing funds, which were used to advance 13 - - ITA 383, 384, 4…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…of the assessee company, there cannot be any disallowance towards notional interest as held by the Supreme Court in the M/s.S.A Builders (288 ITR 1). Further, this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). 7.14. It is also demonstrated by the assessee that the assessee and it is having of its own funds to advance to the assessee, i.e. out of fixed deposit maturity proceeds and also form the export packaging credit, which was internally generated funds and having no interest borrowing funds, which were used to advance 13 - - ITA 383, 384, 4…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…of the assessee company, there cannot be any disallowance towards notional interest as held by the Supreme Court in the M/s.S.A Builders (288 ITR 1). Further, this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). 7.14. It is also demonstrated by the assessee that the assessee and it is having of its own funds to advance to the assessee, i.e. out of fixed deposit maturity proceeds and also form the export packaging credit, which was internally generated funds and having no interest borrowing funds, which were used to advance 13 - - ITA 383, 384, 4…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…of the assessee company, there cannot be any disallowance towards notional interest as held by the Supreme Court in the M/s.S.A Builders (288 ITR 1). Further, this view has also been advanced by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT (354 ITR 377). 7.14. It is also demonstrated by the assessee that the assessee and it is having of its own funds to advance to the assessee, i.e. out of fixed deposit maturity proceeds and also form the export packaging credit, which was internally generated funds and having no interest borrowing funds, which were used to advance 13 - - ITA 383, 384, 4…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 726/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv
Section 37Section 45

…of the profits i.e after the income has reached the assessee, this allocation is actually only an application of income and not a diversion of income as claimed and hence is liable to tax. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Limited (237 ITR 617 (SC) & CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) on explaining the meaning of “Diversion of income by overriding title” has held that “In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deduction in truth, never reached the assessee as his income. Obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation w…

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 506/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Mds/2016 "नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Adv
Section 37Section 45

…of the profits i.e after the income has reached the assessee, this allocation is actually only an application of income and not a diversion of income as claimed and hence is liable to tax. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Cements Limited (237 ITR 617 (SC) & CIT Vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) on explaining the meaning of “Diversion of income by overriding title” has held that “In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deduction in truth, never reached the assessee as his income. Obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation w…

Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Cir.8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5970/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaccn 5346 B आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6084/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 वष" Dcit , Circle-8(2) Pizi Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Phl Pharma Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Mumbai-400 013. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:S/Shri M. Dayasagar-Cit-Dr & Vijay Kumar-Dr Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 27/07/2012,Of The Cit(A)-17,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee- Company,Engaged In The Business Of Consultancy & Detailing Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/09/2008,Declaring A Loss Of Rs.34.73 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 27/12/2010,U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Loss Of Rs. 10,00,82,110/-.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: S/Shri M. Dayasagar-CIT-DR and Vijay Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 40

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं पवन"सह,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Pawan Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5970/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" PIZI Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. DCIT , Circle-8(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd floor, M.K. Road (formerly known as PHL Pharma Pvt. Ltd.) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,…