Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

379 ITR 347Supreme Court of India2015#208 most cited

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.

361

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 379 ITR 347 · 16 SCC 359 · Section 36(1)(iii) · commercial expediency · business expediency · disallowance of expenditure · interest-free advances · corporate guarantee · wholly and exclusively for business · Revenue's armchair approach · sales promotion expenditure

Also reported as

16 SCC 359

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 1961Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 132Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancescommercial expediencysection 36(1)(iii)corporate guaranteebusiness expediencysection 36book profitssection 36(1)arm's length pricetransfer pricing adjustmentassociated enterprisessection 92c

Judgments citing Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT 1(1) Bhopal PAN:AAECM5482F : Appellant V/s M/s. Moenus Textile Private Ltd. Raisen : Respondent Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, AR Respondent by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Date of Hearing 28.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.11. 2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the orde…

Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7939/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7939/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rochem Separation Systems Dcit Cc-2(4) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Old Cgo Bldg (Annex), बिाम/ R. No. 802, 8Th Floor 101, Hdil Tower Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg M. K. Road Bandra (East),Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-1955-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 30/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 23/12/2016. 2. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Substantial Issues Are Covered By Earlier Orders Of Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case. The Copies Of The Orders

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री शक्तिजीत दे, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7939/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rochem Separation Systems DCIT CC-2(4) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Old CGO Bldg (Annex), बिाम/ R. No. 802, 8th floor 101, HDIL Tower Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg M. K. Road Bandra (East),Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AABCR-1955-P (अपीलाथी/…

Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 425/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 37Section 37(1)

…ppreciate that the amount had been advanced for the purposes of business to its joint venture company Indus Tower Limited and grossly erred in disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles Ltd 379 ITR 347 (SC). 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax has erred both on facts and in law in adding to the declared book profits under section 115JB, provision for gratuity amounting to Rs.1,32,03,725/- allegedly on the basis that the same is an unascertained liability and liable to be added as per clause (c) of Explanation (1) below subsection 2 of se…

Mukesh Kumar, Bhattu vs. ITO Ward - 1, Fatehabad

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

ITA 6443/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…2018 dated 27.11.2020 Rajesh Bajaj vs. DCIT 5 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 288 ITR 1 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cased of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 379 ITR 347, he submitted that once trading transactions were genuine and accepted as such, then, such expenditure is in accordance with the law. He accordingly submitted that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 8. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 9. I have considered t…

Moonrock Hospitality (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-17(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5895/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Moonrock Hospitality (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, C-561, Defence Colony, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aafcm7112H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shaswat Bajpai, Advocate & Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Dr. Shaswat Bajpai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ote or concur in establishing or promote any company for the purpose of acquiring all or any of the properties, rights and liabilities of the Company.” 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycle (P.) Ltd., reported in 379 ITR 347, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that once it is established that there is nexus between expenditure and purpose of business Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in arm-chair of businessman or in position of Board of Directors and assume role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3559/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…mitted that in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. C1T (A) 2007 (158) Taxmann 74 SC and M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. 39 ITA.No.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 (63 Taxmann.com 308 SC), no disallowance can be made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act, if the money is advanced to group concerns, is on account of commercial expediency and accordingly, interest paid on borrowed funds to the extent of advanced to group concerns, is allowable expense u/s 36(l)(iii). From the above, it is a undisputed fact, that, the A.O. has disal…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.3559/Del

ITA 3558/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: And Shri Ashish Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshreshtha
Section 132Section 153A

…mitted that in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. C1T (A) 2007 (158) Taxmann 74 SC and M/s Hero Cycles Pvt. 39 ITA.No.3558 & 3559/Del./2016 M/s. Jaypee Capital Services Ltd., New Delhi. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 (63 Taxmann.com 308 SC), no disallowance can be made u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act, if the money is advanced to group concerns, is on account of commercial expediency and accordingly, interest paid on borrowed funds to the extent of advanced to group concerns, is allowable expense u/s 36(l)(iii). From the above, it is a undisputed fact, that, the A.O. has disal…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Heal Kraft India Pvt. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3537/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…taken by the assessee and the same cannot be questioned by the revenue. The ld AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd V. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd V. CIT reported in 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd reported in 254 ITR 377 (Del), wherein it was held that the assessee’s nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business had to be looked into from the point of view of businessman and not from the point of the revenue. The ld AO ca…

Healkraft Pharma India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl.CIT Corporate Range- 2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3345/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…taken by the assessee and the same cannot be questioned by the revenue. The ld AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd V. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd V. CIT reported in 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd reported in 254 ITR 377 (Del), wherein it was held that the assessee’s nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business had to be looked into from the point of view of businessman and not from the point of the revenue. The ld AO ca…

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 25/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. PAN No.: AEZPT 8279 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/07/2021 mn?kk…

DCIT Circle- 3 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Investment & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 37/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 37/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle – 3(3)(1), M/S Reliance Industrial R. No. 609, 6Th Floor बिाम/ Investment & Holdings Ltd. 9Th Floor, Maker Chambers Iv, 222 Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-5053-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Bora, Ld. Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 24/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29/12/2016. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Amount Has Been Given On Commercial Expediency Without Appreciating That The Assessee Has Not Given Any Credible

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Bora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…te proceedings, the assessee reiterated that borrowed funds were utilized for business purposes and therefore, interest would be fully allowable u/s 36(1)(iii). Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. (379 ITR 347) which held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business, the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put himself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of Board of Directors and assume the role to decide as to how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumsta…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 737/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…t the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on the ground of commercial expediency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 discussed the scope of commercial expediency and held that “once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard…

DCIT-2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…t the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on the ground of commercial expediency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 discussed the scope of commercial expediency and held that “once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard…

DCIT, Corporate Circle -2(1), Chennai vs. The India Cements Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…t the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on the ground of commercial expediency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 discussed the scope of commercial expediency and held that “once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard…

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2038/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

…t the expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as business expenditure, if it was incurred on the ground of commercial expediency. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hero Cycles Ltd., vs. CIT, (2015) 379 ITR 347 discussed the scope of commercial expediency and held that “once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business, the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…e case of CIT vs., Walchand & Co. reported in [1967] 3 SCR 214. 8. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs., CIT [1969] 1 SCR 525. 9. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd., vs., CIT [2015] 16 SCC 359. 62 ITA.No.8617/Del./2019 M/s. Brace Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 7.6.24. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) have in order to buttress their case, relied on several decisions to show that the A.O. is well within the Law on penetrating the corporate veil to determine the real nature of the…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sequent Scientific Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 10B

…ontended that the transaction was in nature of commercial expediency and, hence allowable as revenue expenditure/business expenditure. The appellant has also relied upon several case laws including SA Builders Ltd 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cycles P. Ltd vs CIT, 379 ITR 347. 5.5.5 The facts of the case indicate that the sole reason for the appellant to enter Into a joint-venture with a European company was to explore the potential of European markets. The non-fund based financial commitment was part of the conditions agreed to further JV. Due to restrictions of European laws, the appellant 6 M/s. Sequent Scientific…

Prem Jain, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 279/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 263Section 54F

…eloper or the local 5 Prem Jain, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur authorities have demarcated or treated the plots of land cannot be held against the assessee. 8. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) • Mohammadanif Sultanali Pradhan v. DCIT (ITA 1797/Ahd/2018 dated 06.01.2020) • Navin Jolly v. ITO (2020) 6 TMI 514 (Kar) • Atul Kochar v. PCIT (2021) 3 TMI 997 (JP) • Lata Phulwani v. PCIT (2020) 10 TMI 407 (JP) 9. Regarding the query raised by the Bench during the course of hearing as to whether benefit of deduction u/s. 54F can be extend…

Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our order

ITA 7940/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…man so as to ascertain the quantum of deduction allowable to the assessee as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. Pvt Ltd (1967; 65 ITR 381); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs. CIT (1969; 72 ITR 612) and also in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015; 63 Taxmann.com 308). Another pertinent fact is that while framing assessment for AY 2013-14 (which is the first year of payment of rent), the lease rent paid the assessee as per the agreements has not been disturbed by Ld. AO. Therefore, on the facts & circumstances of the case, the revenue authorities were not justified in tinkering with the claim made by t…

DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana vs. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 1493/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1493/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dy. CIT M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. बनाम Circle-5, Ludhiana G.T. Road, Hero Nagar Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent CROSS OBJECTION NO. 4/CHD/2018 (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 1493/Chd/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Dy. CIT बनाम G.T.…