What is Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

How many judgments cite Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

361 judgments on BharatTax cite Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (379 ITR 347), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 147, Section 1961, Section 143(2), Section 14A.

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (379 ITR 347)

NIPUN MALHOTRA,MANDI vs. ITO, WARD, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 81/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nipun Malhotra, The Ito, 135/A, Jawahar Nagar, Vs Ward, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Mandi (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ablpm6589N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he advances given. He also pointed out that AO has followed the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries 286 ITR 1 which has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. V CIT 379 ITR 347. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities. 5. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that jurisprudence on this point, at present is that if assessee has mixed funds and it has more interest free funds, then it is to be assumed that intere…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. AVIGNA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2930/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2930/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…has erred in law in failing to consider that the funds borrowed at high interest rates were utilized for advancing interest-free loans, thereby resulting in diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes, as held in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) and CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). 6. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that the assessee was facing a cash flow crunch and had to borrow funds to meet business requirements, indicating that the interestfree advances were not for business purposes. 7.…

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

…such deviation. Therefore, the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.86,99,072/- is not justified and liable to be deleted. 40. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner while relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) and in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2006 [reported in (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)] and considering the commercial expediency, deleted the aforesaid addition made on account of disallowance made qua expenditure of interest on loan. 41. We have given thoughtful consideration to th…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…ujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any nexus between borrowed funds and advances made, the disallowance of interest expenditure is unjustified. 6.5.9 Therefore, the claim that the appellant firm has advanced loans were out of its partner’s capital amounting Rs. 9,89,24,909/-is acceptable. Thus,it is clear that the disallo…

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…ujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any nexus between borrowed funds and advances made, the disallowance of interest expenditure is unjustified. 6.5.9 Therefore, the claim that the appellant firm has advanced loans were out of its partner’s capital amounting Rs. 9,89,24,909/-is acceptable. Thus,it is clear that the disallo…

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…ujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any nexus between borrowed funds and advances made, the disallowance of interest expenditure is unjustified. 6.5.9 Therefore, the claim that the appellant firm has advanced loans were out of its partner’s capital amounting Rs. 9,89,24,909/-is acceptable. Thus,it is clear that the disallo…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…ujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any nexus between borrowed funds and advances made, the disallowance of interest expenditure is unjustified. 6.5.9 Therefore, the claim that the appellant firm has advanced loans were out of its partner’s capital amounting Rs. 9,89,24,909/-is acceptable. Thus,it is clear that the disallo…

KUNTAL HASMUKHLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8360/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkuntal Hasmukhlal Shah Acit-4(1)(1) 104, 1St Floor, Plot No. 53, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchsheel, P. M. Shukla Vs. Churchgate, Marg, C-Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aagps5867F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashok Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Aditya Rai, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…llowance of Rs. 13,76,621/- relying upon judicial precedents without appreciating the fact that no expenditure to earn exempt income is debited to profit and loss account. 11. The AR placed reliance on the following decisions:  CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC), wherein it was held that disallowance under section 14A cannot be made in the absence of nexus between expenditure and exempt income.  ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 (Delhi ITAT, Special Bench), holding that Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically and requires clear evidence of expenditure incurred for earning exempt…

KASTURI MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,JOKA, THAKURPUKUR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…is real and incurred for business purposes, the Department cannot substitute its own wisdom to determine what is "reasonable." This doctrine has been reaffirmed in SA. Builders Laid. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles (P) Lal x CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC), where it was emphasised that once nexus with business purpose is shown, no disallowance is permissible merely because the Revenue perceives the quantum as excessive. Most recently, the Supreme Court in Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT (2020) 425 ITR 420 (SC) reiterated that the perception of the Assessing Officer cannot override the commercial realiti…

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1737/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…e Act as per Rule 11UA and the assumptions made for the purpose of projections and valuation thereof cannot be rejected. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation repor…

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1736/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…e Act as per Rule 11UA and the assumptions made for the purpose of projections and valuation thereof cannot be rejected. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation repor…

M/S.THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1735/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…e Act as per Rule 11UA and the assumptions made for the purpose of projections and valuation thereof cannot be rejected. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation repor…

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1734/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 11

…e Act as per Rule 11UA and the assumptions made for the purpose of projections and valuation thereof cannot be rejected. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs.CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347. Further, the assessee also submitted valuation based on NAV method and arrived at a value of Rs.373.48 per share and requested to adopt the same. 34. However, the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the explanation given by the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that the assessee had not furnished the valuation repor…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. BRIGHT BUILDTECH PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 595/DEL/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1 Flat No.14, Ground Floor A.R.T.O Complex Dda Mig, Suraj Sector-33, Noida Apartment, Pul Pehlad Pur New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Chandra, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Veersain Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

…ITA No.595/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] DCIT vs Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-1 Flat No.14, Ground Floor A.R.T.O Complex DDA MIG, Suraj Sector-33, Noida Apartment, Pul Pehlad Pur New Delhi-110044 PAN-AACCB7981J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Rajesh Chandra, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Veersain Aggarwal, CA Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned appea…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

ITA 3086/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3086/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] The A.CI.T. Vs. VIC Enterprises Pvt Ltd 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan New Delhi Rouse Avenue, New Delhi PAN – AAACV 0132 B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), dated 06.11.2023…

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra and AnkurFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…5 (Page 324 and 326 of convenience paperbook) (iv) Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT (1977) 3 SCC 432 (Page 334 of convenience paperbook) (v) S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 (Page 340-341 of convenience paperbook) (vi) Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 16 SCC 359 (Page 347 of convenience paperbook) (vii) Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 12044/2016, judgement dated 22.07.2020 (Supreme Court) (Page 358 of convenience paperbook) (viii) Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on account of incidental third party benefit is impermissible (ix) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC) (Page 367 o…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…itself into the armchair of the businessman and decide how and in what manner the business to be conducted and/or how much expenditure is to be incurred or how much expenditure is reasonable. In this regard he relied on the decision of Hero Cycle Ltd. v. CIT: 379 ITR 347 (SC). Further he submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year(s) 1999-00 (ITA No. 250/2005) and 2000-01 (ITA No. 976/2005), wherein the High Court has held that onus is on the Revenue to establish proximate nexus of expenses with earning of exemp…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…itself into the armchair of the businessman and decide how and in what manner the business to be conducted and/or how much expenditure is to be incurred or how much expenditure is reasonable. In this regard he relied on the decision of Hero Cycle Ltd. v. CIT: 379 ITR 347 (SC). Further he submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year(s) 1999-00 (ITA No. 250/2005) and 2000-01 (ITA No. 976/2005), wherein the High Court has held that onus is on the Revenue to establish proximate nexus of expenses with earning of exemp…

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…)(i) were satisfied, and thus, Assessing Officer could not have disallowed such claim of bad debts on ground that sum was prematurely written off by assesssee - Held, yes”. 6.3.16 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 20 :: once the debt is written off in the books of accounts as bad debt, the same shall be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case reinforces the princip…

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…)(i) were satisfied, and thus, Assessing Officer could not have disallowed such claim of bad debts on ground that sum was prematurely written off by assesssee - Held, yes”. 6.3.16 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 20 :: once the debt is written off in the books of accounts as bad debt, the same shall be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case reinforces the princip…

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

NIPUN MALHOTRA,MANDI vs. ITO, WARD, MANDI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. AVIGNA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

KUNTAL HASMUKHLAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

KASTURI MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,JOKA, THAKURPUKUR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DELHI

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

M/S.THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

M/S. THIRUVALLUVAR TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. BRIGHT BUILDTECH PVT. LTD, DELHI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI