Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT

38 ITR 601Supreme Court of India1960#222 most cited

What is Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

346

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT · 38 ITR 601 · commercial expediency · business expediency · related party transaction · enduring benefit · business expenditure · prudent businessman · disallowance of interest expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 37Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

interest on interestaccumulated profitssection 40a(2)(b)commercial expediencyrelated party transactionbusiness expediencysection 194jenduring benefitsection 40a(2)section 14a(2)disallowance of interest expendituresection 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…other words, the issue of commercial expediency would also arise. ………… 20. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court approving the observation of ATHERTON's case - 1926 AC 205 in the matter of EASTERN INVESTMENT LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in (1951) 20 ITR 1, held: "..a sum of money expended, none of necessity and with a view to a direct and immediate benefit to the trade, but voluntarily on the grounds of commercial expediency, and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business, may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade", can be adopted as the best inte…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…ness and existence of revenue from hotel business is not a pre condition to claim depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. He relied on the following judgments. • CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [ 1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) • Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. CIT [2017] 391 ITR 256 (Punjab 8s Haryana) • CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) • CIT v. Darashaw & Co. (P.) Ltd [2014] 226 Taxman 193 (Bombay) (MAG.) • CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay) • CIT v. M. Ethurajan [2005] 273 ITR 95 (Madras) • CIT v. Aspentech India (P…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Ori…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Ori…

Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…122/Bang/2019 Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Ori…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Livewire Programme Trdg. Co P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3264/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 36(1)(iii)

…re Ltd.(2 TR 194), S.A.Builders Ltd. v/s CIT (288 ITR 01), CIT v/s Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (103 ITR 66), Bombay Samachar Ltd. (74 ITR 723), CIT v/s Sales Magnesite (Pvt) Ltd (1995) (214 ITR 1) (Born), CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) (38 ITR 601), Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (1965) (56 ITR 52), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (1967) (65 ITR 1) Cal), JK Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v/s CIT (1969) (72 ITR 296) (All), CIT vis Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd (2002) (254 ITR 377) (Del.), DCIT v/s M/s Parry And Company Ltd. (2008- TIOL-555- ITAT-MAD), Hatiwala Silk Mills v/s Ass…

M/S Acb (India) Power Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 82/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/s ACB [India] Power Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. C – 102, Surya Enclave Circle – 1(2) New Multan Nagar New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAICA 7305 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 30.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2020 Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Sr. Adv Revenue by : Ms Rakhi Vimal, DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2946/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

…assessee though the brand is owned by the AE does not warrant any disallowance in the hands of the assessee. Whether the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandulal Keshavlal 38 ITR 601, had observed as under:- “……in deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial experience and principle of ordinary commercial trading. Another test is whether the transaction is properly entered into as a part of the Assessee legitimate commercial undertaking in order to…

M/S. Michelin India Tyres Private Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue is

ITA 2415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

…assessee though the brand is owned by the AE does not warrant any disallowance in the hands of the assessee. Whether the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandulal Keshavlal 38 ITR 601, had observed as under:- “……in deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial experience and principle of ordinary commercial trading. Another test is whether the transaction is properly entered into as a part of the Assessee legitimate commercial undertaking in order to…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…te 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. We may refer to a few of these authorities to elucidate the point. In Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1, it was held by the Supreme Court that “there are usually many ways in which a given thing can be brought about in business circles but it is not for the Court to decide which of them should have been employed when the 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…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…te 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. We may refer to a few of these authorities to elucidate the point. In Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1, it was held by the Supreme Court that “there are usually many ways in which a given thing can be brought about in business circles but it is not for the Court to decide which of them should have been employed when the 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…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…te 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. We may refer to a few of these authorities to elucidate the point. In Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1, it was held by the Supreme Court that “there are usually many ways in which a given thing can be brought about in business circles but it is not for the Court to decide which of them should have been employed when the 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…

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…te 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. We may refer to a few of these authorities to elucidate the point. In Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT, (1951) 20 ITR 1, it was held by the Supreme Court that “there are usually many ways in which a given thing can be brought about in business circles but it is not for the Court to decide which of them should have been employed when the 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…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 489/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate and Shri Ketan Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC. He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Kunnel Engineers & Contractors P. Ltd, Kochi

ITA 653/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 43B

…ted 06/06/2016) (Ker.) 2. S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (288 ITR 1) (SC) 3. CIT vs. V.I. Baby and Co. (254 ITR 248) (Ker.) 4. Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. CIT (AIR 1979 SC 129) 5. Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC) 6. CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (38 ITR 601) (SC) 7. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (208 ITR 989) (Bom.) 8. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CWT (215 ITR 582) (Bom.) 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377) (Del.). 10. CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) (SC) 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the assessee has not established i…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1716/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…from a passage from the judgment of House of Lords in the case of Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsbey Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 Tax Cases 155 (HL), referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), which reads as follows: "It was made clear in the above cited cases of Usher's Wilshire Brewery vs. Bruce (supra) and Smith vs. Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (1914) 6 Tax Cases 477 that a sum of money expended not with a necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on the grounds of com…

Smt. Zeelia Zeena Mayzean Shenoy, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1715/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt.Sheethal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…from a passage from the judgment of House of Lords in the case of Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsbey Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 Tax Cases 155 (HL), referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), which reads as follows: "It was made clear in the above cited cases of Usher's Wilshire Brewery vs. Bruce (supra) and Smith vs. Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (1914) 6 Tax Cases 477 that a sum of money expended not with a necessity and with a view to direct and immediate benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on the grounds of com…

Suresh Chand Agrawal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4667/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. C.P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 56Section 57

…clusion that to bring a case within the section, it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. It may be pointed out that an identical view was taken by this court in Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1, 4 (SC), where interpreting the corresponding provision in s. 12(2) of the Indian /. T. Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in the same terms as s. 57(iii). Bose J., speaking on behalf of the court, observed: "It is not necessary to show that the expenditure was a profitable one or that in fact any profit was earned. It is indeed difficult to see…

Ashok M. Wadhwa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14Section 14ASection 40ASection 56Section 57Section 57(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri C.N. Prasad (JM) I.T.A. No. 706/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Shri Ashok M. Wadhwa ACIT-3(1) Vs. 101-A, Maker Tower-A Mumbai Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 005. PAN : AAAPW2741E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Malik Department by Shri Michael Jerald Date of Hearing 23.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 25.10.2016 and pertains to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under :-…

Rajkham Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -5(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1147/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR. V.Sreenivasan,JCIT, D.R
Section 37

…D.R. submitted that the disallowance made by the A.O. is in accordance with the established procedure. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & CO., reported in (1960) 38 ITR 601, 610(SC), has confirmed the disallowances made by the A.O., although the learned CIT(A) has directed the A.O. to examine whether the percentage of interest at which the disallowance is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, modified the disallowance. Therefore, Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower Authorities…