(i) CIT v. Walchand & Co.

3 SCR 214Supreme Court of India1967#17582 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

previous year transfer section 143 prescribed business person document section 14 section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Walchand & Co.

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)

…t. (Refer Form 35A p.g. 14 211-217 of appeal set / PDF File Page 209-215 of appeal set) (Bifurcation of Advertisement Expenses - Page 449-450 of paperbook/PDF File Page 451-452 of paperbook). Reliance was placed on as under: (i) CIT v. Walchand & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 (Refer Page 309 of convenience paperbook) (ii) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 (Refer Page 313-314 of convenience paperbook) (iii) CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 2 SCC 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…

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…ity.\n\n15.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivraj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 425 ITR 420 (SC)/(2020) 117 Taxmann.com 871 (SC) has considered the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Wallchand & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 and SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) and reiterated the dictum that the Income Tax Authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the Assessee and to see how a prudent businessman would act. The Authorities must not look at the matter from their own point of view but that of a prudent businessman. Thus, on the aforesaid…

M/S. C. J. Group & Gajras Builders & Developers, Panvel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…02) 254 ITR 377 (SC). The ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the following case law: 11 M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers  Shiv Raj Gupta Vs.s CIT, Delhi-IV (Civil Appeal No.12044 of 2016) dated 22.07.2020 (SC)  CIT vs. Walchand &Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 (SC)  J.K.Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 (SC)  CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1976) 2 SCC 5 (SC)  Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT (1977) 3 SCC 432 (SC)  S.A Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (12007) 1 SCC 781 (SC)  Kay Dee Industries vs. JCIT (ITA No.2069 of 2016) dated 09.08.2018 (Trib-Delhi)  CIT vs. Navsari Cotton Silk M…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.8617/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 M/s. Brace Iron & Steel The Addl. Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., D2, 5th Floor, of Income Tax, Southern Park, Saket vs. Special Range-2, Place, New Delhi. C.R. Building, PIN – 110017 PAN AAECB9347C New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Advocate For Assessee : Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.A. Ms. Ananya Rath, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR…

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…held that commercial expediency has to be adjudged from the point of view of the assessee and that the Income Tax Department cannot enter into the thicket of reasonableness of amounts paid by the assessee. 17 This Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 stated as follows: “It is open to the Tribunal to come to a conclusion either that the alleged payment is not real or that it is not incurred by the assessee in the character of a trader or that it is not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and to disallow it. But it is not the function of the Trib…