How many judgments cite Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT?

346 judgments on BharatTax cite Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT (38 ITR 601), spanning 2006 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A, Section 37, Section 234B.

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 366,470 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 147 Section 148 Section 14A Section 37 Section 234B Section 40A(2)(b)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

interest on interest accumulated profits section 40a(2)(b)commercial expediency related party transaction business expediency section 194j enduring benefit section 40a(2)section 14a(2)disallowance of interest expenditure section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT

I.T.O WD - 8(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Ruia Sons Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…and that it is an expenditure merely with a view to avoid tax liability without any genuine purpose or reason in good faith. Therefore, none of the conditions of the negative tests has been satisfied in this case. In CIT v, Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601(SC) the ratio laid down by the Hon 'ble supreme-Court is that if a payment or expenditure is incurred for the purpose of the trade of the assessee, it is deductible even if it may bring a benefit to a third party. Further, in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for th…

I.T.O WD - 7(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Shalini Properties & Developers Private Limited., Kolkata

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…and that it is an expenditure merely with a view to avoid tax liability without any genuine purpose or reason in good faith. Therefore, none of the conditions of the negative tests has been satisfied in this case. In CIT vs Chandanlal Keshavlal & Co, [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that if a payment or expenditure is incurred for the purpose of the trade of the assessee, it is deductible even if it is may bring a benefit to a third party. Further, in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining 15 M/s.Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-…

Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3494/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. Cit 1St Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Assessee By: Shri F.V. Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 17.03.2010 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,A Share Broker, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Its Total Income Of Rs.390.03 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao) Completed Assessment On 30. 03.2009,Determining Its Income At Rs.401.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla

Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…3494/M/10(07-08) Kotak Securities Ltd. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. CIT 1st Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-40…

M/S Divakar Solar System Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…nd in order to indirectly to facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton’s case, (supra) has been approved by this Court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1, CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 etc. 24. In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other income-tax authorities should have approached the question of allowability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words, the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest free loan was given to the sister company (…

Globex Energia P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1109/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Globex Energia P. Ltd. Acit 6(3) 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, 570 Mumbai- बनाम/ Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Vs. Behind Mahindra Towr, S. Worli Mumbai-400018 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadcg1161C Appellant By Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mis. Jasmin Amalsadvala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Prakash Mane (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2016 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…or not and whether ultimate benefit has accrued immediately or not, the expenses 9 Globex Energia P. Ltd. incurred shall be allowable if these have been incurred for the purpose of business or for commercial expediency:- 1. Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC) 2. J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj) 3. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 ITR 508,516) (Guj) 4. Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All) 5. Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Bom) 6. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC) 7. J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC) 8. Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhor Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 4480/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri. Surabhi SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. S.C.Tiwari &

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Dy. CIT- 1(1)(1), M/s. Bhor Industries Ltd., 579, Aayakar Bhawan, Tanna House Annexe, 11-A, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai- 400 005. PAN: AAACV3535C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Surabhi Sharma Respondent by : Shri. S.C.Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar Date of Hearing: 16/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 06/…

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Acytelene Trexim (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee-company.” One of the broad principles for allowance of deduction under sec. 37(1) of the Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) is that ‘if the payment or expenditure is incurred for the purpose of the trade of the assessee it does not matter that the payment may ensure to the benefit of a third party. Another test is whether the transaction is properly entered into as part of the assessee’s legitimate commercial undertaking in order to facilitate the carrying on its…

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,…

Quantium Advisors P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhquantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 503, Regent Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan:Aaacq 0281C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry/Niraj D. SethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Management Company (QAMC), which managed the assets of Quantum Mutual Fund and, therefore, such expenditure was allowable in the hands of the assessee. Reliance was sought to be placed on the following decisions – i) CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) ii) CIT v/s Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC) iii) Eastern Investment Limited v/s CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 iv) Campa Beverages (P) Ltd. v/s IAC [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Del.) v) CIT v/s Alfa Laval (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 149 Taxman 29 vi) S.A. Builders v/s CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 to say that an expenditure incurred for the purposes of busin…

Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2245/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR

Section 80

…e 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 28 I.T.A. No. 1894, 1898, 2244, 2245/D/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10 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…

Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR

Section 80

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1898/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR

Section 80

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Fabindia Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1894/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.M.Govil, CIT DR

Section 80

Vipula J Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6064/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Vipula J. Choksi Vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)-4 Siddhi Priya Building Aaykar Bhavan, N.S. Road 4, Jvpd Scheme Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 056. Pan: Acxpc2426M Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…and in order to indirectly facilitate the carrying on the business. The above test in Atherton's case (supra) has been approved by this court in several decisions e.g. Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT (1951) 20ITR 1 (SC), CITv. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) etc. 22. In our opinion, the High Court as well as the Tribunal and other IT authorities should have approached the question of allow ability of interest on the borrowed funds from the above angle. In other words the High Court and other authorities should have enquired as to whether the interest-free loan was given to the sister company (wh…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. 3M India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…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…

3M India Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

Ascendas (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1255/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. M/S. Ascendas (India) Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ist Floor, International Techpark, Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, Corporate Circle I(1) Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 113. [Pan Aaacj 9055H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…(b) Mysore Minerals Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) (c) R.M.P. Perianna Pillai & Co vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 370 (Mad) (d) Pandit Bros. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Pun) (e) CIT vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2010) 344 ITR 161 (Bom) (f) Eastern Investments Ltd vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) (g) CIT vs. Walchand & Co etc. (1967( 65 ITR 271(SC) (h) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) (i) CIT vs. A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) (j) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad) (k) Dhakesari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (l) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs. CIT (1974) 9…

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

…d. v. CIT: 124 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.: 172 ITR 257 (SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Arvind Mills Ltd v. CIT: 97 ITR 422 (SC) 51 ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) • DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (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) • Dalm…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Minda Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1664/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA

Section 35

…t payment in another case. No doubt such delay in receiving goods did create a doubt in the mind of the A.O. but doubts and suspicions cannot be made the basis of assessment as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandu Lai Keshav Lai in 38 ITR 601. This judgment has been followed in many subsequent cases. The learned A.O. should have investigated the matter further about the delay. It is here that the evidence filed by the appellant about freight bills, loading and unloading charges etc. become important piece of evidences to substantiate its claim. All such details leave no doubt in anybod…

M/S Minda Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1505/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA

Section 35