Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

81 ITR 754Supreme Court of India1971#2520 most cited

What is Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for business exigency is allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Litigation expenses incurred to protect business are revenue expenditure.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 81 ITR 754 · Section 37 · business exigency · revenue expenditure · litigation expenses · capital expenditure · business protection

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37Section 147Section 151Section 10(2)(xv)Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(i)section 9(i)section 35abbsection 5(2)(b)section 2(1)section 10(2)enduring benefitsection 43(6)legal expensessection 9(1)(i)section 145(2)section 40a(ia)

Judgments citing Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Manglam Arts, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/JPR/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 250

…or these reasons, the expenditure can be treated as capital expenditure. In support of his contention, the ld. A/R placed reliance on the following case laws :- (1) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. Vs. CIT(1991) 187 ITR 39 (SC) (2) Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) (3) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) (4) CIT Vs. O.P.N. Arunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620 (Madras) (HC) While concluding, the ld. A/R submitted that from the above decisions it is evident that when the litigation expenditure is incurred to protect the business, the same is revenue expenditure. In the present case,…

Hitachi Metglas (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…• Chelpark Company Ltd. v. CIT: 191 ITR 249 (Mad.) · • K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. CIT: 44 ITR 689 (SC) · • Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 27 ITR 34 (SC) · • L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT: 125 ITR 293 (SC) · Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 81 ITR 754 (SC) · • M.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 86 ITR 38 (SC) · • Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT: 62 ITR 566 (SC) · • CIT v. B.N. Elias & Co. (P.) Ltd.: 168 ITR 190 (Cal.) · • CIT v. Hindustan General Electric Corpn. Ltd.: 81 ITR 243 (Cal.) · Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. v. CIT: 163 ITR 606 (Bom.) · CIT v. Mehta Transport Co.: 160 ITR 3…

ACIT 1 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 111/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…g been incurred in respect of assets held as stock-in-trade, are allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the…

Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT RG. 1 (1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 7853/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…g been incurred in respect of assets held as stock-in-trade, are allowable as business expenditure. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. Dalmia Jain & Co Ltd vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) 3. CIT vs O.P.N. Aunachala Nadar (1983) 141 ITR 620(Mad) 4. CIT vs Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd (2012) 346 ITR 33(Bom) 5 ITA 7853/Mum/2019 111/Mum/2020 CO 80/Mum/2021 5. Hiranandani Akruti JV vs DCIT ITA No.5678/Mum/2015 order dated 3 October, 2017 6. DCIT vs B Kumar Gowda (2017) 396 ITR 386 (Kar) 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of the…

M/S Maya Ventures Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1)(2)

The appeal is allowed

ITA/136/2018HC Karnataka18 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260

…owable u/s 37 of IT Act. He submitted that these written submissions should be considered to decide this issue. The judgments cited are as under. 1. CIT Vs. Deluxe Film Distributors Ltd., (114 ITR 434) (Call) 2. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (81 ITR 754) (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Bhowrisankara Steam Ferry Co. (87 ITR 650) (AP) 4. DCIT Vs. B.Kumara Gowda (396 ITR 386) (Kar) He also submitted that the amount in question was paid to Shri Ramesh for settling dispute with his sister so the development work of the property can be carried out smoothly and therefore, it should be accepted that this…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ected with mining and expenditure was incurred only to protect the business interest of the assessee company and the same is allowable as legal expenditure in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Da…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ected with mining and expenditure was incurred only to protect the business interest of the assessee company and the same is allowable as legal expenditure in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Da…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ected with mining and expenditure was incurred only to protect the business interest of the assessee company and the same is allowable as legal expenditure in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Da…

ACIT Central Circle, Salem vs. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ected with mining and expenditure was incurred only to protect the business interest of the assessee company and the same is allowable as legal expenditure in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalmial Jain and Co Ltd vs CIT, 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Sree Meenkshi ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 72 -: Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 63 ITR 207 (SC). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. B.Kumara Gowda, 396 ITR 386 after referring to the above decisions of SC had held as follows:- 13. Before we proceed further, we shall refer to the following judgments cited at the Bar:— (a) In Da…

JCIT(OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolakata, Kolkata vs. M/S Krm International Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1314/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…asset or was incurred for maintaining the business of the Company, and that if it was the former, it is capital expenditure, and that if it was the latter, it is revenue expenditure. The Ld A.R also relied upon the cases of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC), CIT Vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR2 (SC). It was further ITA No.1311-1314/Kol/2016 A.Ys 98-99, 03-04 to 05-06 JCIT(OSD) Cir-11(1), Kol. Vs. M/s KRM International Ltd. Page 6 pleaded by the Ld. A.R that it was also held in the case of CIT Vs. Steel Complex Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 1054 (KER) that cost of installation of water tr…

JCIT(OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolakata, Kolkata vs. M/S Krm International Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1313/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…asset or was incurred for maintaining the business of the Company, and that if it was the former, it is capital expenditure, and that if it was the latter, it is revenue expenditure. The Ld A.R also relied upon the cases of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC), CIT Vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR2 (SC). It was further ITA No.1311-1314/Kol/2016 A.Ys 98-99, 03-04 to 05-06 JCIT(OSD) Cir-11(1), Kol. Vs. M/s KRM International Ltd. Page 6 pleaded by the Ld. A.R that it was also held in the case of CIT Vs. Steel Complex Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 1054 (KER) that cost of installation of water tr…

JCIT(OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolakata, Kolkata vs. M/S Krm International Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1312/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…asset or was incurred for maintaining the business of the Company, and that if it was the former, it is capital expenditure, and that if it was the latter, it is revenue expenditure. The Ld A.R also relied upon the cases of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC), CIT Vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR2 (SC). It was further ITA No.1311-1314/Kol/2016 A.Ys 98-99, 03-04 to 05-06 JCIT(OSD) Cir-11(1), Kol. Vs. M/s KRM International Ltd. Page 6 pleaded by the Ld. A.R that it was also held in the case of CIT Vs. Steel Complex Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 1054 (KER) that cost of installation of water tr…

JCIT(OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolakata, Kolkata vs. M/S Krm International Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1311/KOL/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…asset or was incurred for maintaining the business of the Company, and that if it was the former, it is capital expenditure, and that if it was the latter, it is revenue expenditure. The Ld A.R also relied upon the cases of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC), CIT Vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR2 (SC). It was further ITA No.1311-1314/Kol/2016 A.Ys 98-99, 03-04 to 05-06 JCIT(OSD) Cir-11(1), Kol. Vs. M/s KRM International Ltd. Page 6 pleaded by the Ld. A.R that it was also held in the case of CIT Vs. Steel Complex Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 1054 (KER) that cost of installation of water tr…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard/ it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daimia Jain & Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard/ it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daimia Jain & Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard/ it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daimia Jain & Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…ant for purchase of various items will amount to creation of new assets with an enduring benefit to the company. In this regard/ it is worthwhile to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daimia Jain & Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 wherein it has been held that "in deciding whether a particular expenditure is a capital in nature, what the Courts have to see as to whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new assets or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company, if it is the former, it is capital expenditure. If it is the latter, it is reven…

Vaaya Renewable Energy (Purna) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1)`, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…velling expenses are incurred for purposes of business, it must be considered as revenue expenditure. This proposition is supported by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. ITA Nos.535/Mum/2018 9 Vaaya Renewable Energy (PURNA) Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). To be more precise, the type of expenses, object or purpose of the expenses has to be ascertained from the facts of each case. If the object or purpose is to enhance, the existing business, the expenditure would be of revenue in nature. The ratio laid down in following cases supports o…

Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5678/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 30Section 37(1)Section 57

…pital expenditure. On the other hand, if the litigation expenses are incurred to protect the business of the assessee, it must be considered as revenue expenditure. This proposition is supported by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC) and Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC). To be more precise, the type of litigation, object or purpose of the litigation has to be ascertained from the facts of each case. If the object or purpose is to defend or maintain existing title to the capital asset of the business of the assessee, the expenditure would be of revenue…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 840/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 37

…duction is allowable u/s. 37 of IT Act. He submitted that these written submissions should be considered to decide this issue. The judgments cited are as under. 1. CIT Vs. Deluxe Film Distributors Ltd. (114 ITR 434) (Cal) 2. Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (81 ITR 754) (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Bhowrisankara Steam Ferry Co. (87 ITR 650)(AP) 4. DCIT Vs. B. Kumara Gowda (396 ITR 386) (Kar) He also submitted that the amount in question was paid to Shri Ramesh for settling dispute with his sister so the development work of the property can be Page 3 of 4 carried out smoothly and therefore, it should be accepted that this pa…