Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT (Bom)

137 ITR 58Reported decision1982#7671 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80IBSection 10CCBSection 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 153a proceedingsexplanation to section 37section 158bdprohibited by lawgoing concernbusiness expediencyinitial assessment yearsection 246section 30section 80icsection 246a

Judgments citing Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT (Bom)

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…ad.) 153 ITR 422, Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT (Kar) 166 ITR 836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Additi…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…ad.) 153 ITR 422, Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT (Kar) 166 ITR 836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Additi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…ad.) 153 ITR 422, Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT (Kar) 166 ITR 836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Additi…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…purposes of business. The words "Expenditure incurred" used in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of s…

ACIT. CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S EIPR INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi
Section 14ASection 69C

…961." 6. Further, a similar view is taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 1. The Bombay High Court, relying upon its earlier decision rendered in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 58, held that it cannot, perhaps, be disputed that, in order to be entitled to deduction of payments to persons whose names are not disclosed, the assessee has to - (i) establish the practice prevailing in that line of business for making such payments; (ii) adduce satisfactory evidence to establish the payments; (iii) satisfy the authorities that th…

SHIVALIK VENTURES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…as wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. He submitted that the it is the responsibility of the assessee to prove that the expenses claimed by it is allowable, as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints (137 ITR 58)(Bom). He submitted that the losses are not considered as expenditure as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Walfort Shares & securities (326 ITR 1)(SC). Relying on the decision of Nainital Bank (supra), the Ld D.R contended that each and every loss is not deductible. He also placed his reliance on the decisions reported i…

YAMI ASSOCIATES,RAJNANDGAON vs. I.T.O.-1, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Yami Associates, The Income Tax Officer-I, Yalsco Carrier Building, F.C.I. Road, Near Raipur Naka, Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vs. Pan: Aaafy7073P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain (DR)
Section 143

…s as has been held in plethora of cases like CIT Vs. Kolkata Agencies Limited 19 ITR 191 (SC), Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC), Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau). 227 ITR 846, Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58. In case expenses are not supported by proper bills and vouchers, reasonable addition can be made out of partial disallowance of expenses, though books of accounts are audited and auditor has not made any adverse comment as held in Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CIT 246 ITR 116, Shri Khushal Prasad Manhar Vs. CIT 236 CTR 192, Asstt CIT vs. Agility Logist…

FLAT WORLD PROCESSES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.56/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ M/S. Flat World Processes P. Ito-8(1)(4) Ltd., 30 Level-3, Ceejay House, F-Block, Shiv Sagar V. Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcf1764G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Namrit ChandheriFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop
Section 131Section 133(6)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.56/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ M/s. Flat World Processes P. ITO-8(1)(4) Ltd., 30 Level-3, Ceejay House, F-Block, Shiv Sagar v. Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABCF1764G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Namrit Chandheri Revenue by : Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 15-03-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Da…

TOSHBRO MEDICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 7064/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7064/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Toshbro Medicals Dcit – 1(3), बनाम/ Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, V. 8 Mohatta Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct4483C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran,DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

…were provided by the assessee company. Thus , the claim of the assessee company u/s 37(1) of the Act was denied by the A.O. and in support the AO relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT (Bom), 137 ITR 58 and Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. DCIT ITA 7064/Mum/2012 5 (Bom), 311 ITR 146, vide assessment orders dated 20.12.2011 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 20.12.2011 passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee company has filed first appeal before the learned CIT(A). 6. Before the lea…

Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT (Bom) (137 ITR 58) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax