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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri.B.Kumar Gowda Mine Owners

ITA/200004/2015HC Karnataka10 Jul 2017

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,B.A.PATIL

Section 260ASection 37

…e was granted by the Department of Mines and Geology in the year 2006 to the assessee, which was assailed in writ petitions filed by the aforesaid parties. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., vs. CIT [81 ITR 754 (SC)] [Dalmia Jain & Co.Ltd.] and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., vs. CIT [63 ITR 207 (SC)] [Meenakshi Mills Ltd]. The Assessing Officer not being satisfied with the contention of the assessee, held that the expenditure had to be construed to be capital expenditure, as it was an expenditure having nexus to earning of profits in business. Accordingly,…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Wadhwa Constructions, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…apital 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 J ain & 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 in…

Navinchandra N . Majithia, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…r hand, if the litigation expenses are incurred to protect the business of the 10 Shri Navinchandra N. Majithia 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 in…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…(SC) • 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 35 (Guj.)…

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015
Section 35ASection 37

…pt the view of the Tribunal and in support of that it was contended before us by learned counsel for the Revenue that the highest bid of AOP-3 was accepted by the High Court on or about 21st September, 1994 and therefore there was no question of the 1 [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) 2 [1967] 63 ITR 207 (SC) 6 Page 7 JUDGMENT expenses being incurred for protecting the business of the going concern subsequent to that date. In other words all the legal expenses incurred were prior to 21st September, 1994 and were therefore personal in nature. 19. We are not at all impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the…

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015
Section 35ASection 37

…pt the view of the Tribunal and in support of that it was contended before us by learned counsel for the Revenue that the highest bid of AOP-3 was accepted by the High Court on or about 21st September, 1994 and therefore there was no question of the 1 [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) 2 [1967] 63 ITR 207 (SC) 6 Page 7 JUDGMENT expenses being incurred for protecting the business of the going concern subsequent to that date. In other words all the legal expenses incurred were prior to 21st September, 1994 and were therefore personal in nature. 19. We are not at all impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the…