(ii) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT

1 SCR 525Supreme Court of India1969#18540 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

transfer business document

Judgments citing (ii) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT

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)

…ion 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. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 1 SCC 781 (Page 340-341 of convenience paperbook) (vi) Hero Cycles (…

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)

…ied 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 Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) 11. On the other hand,…

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

…e purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue.” [at page 217] The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 1 SCR 525 where the Court held: “As pointed out by this Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. Private Ltd. [(1967) 65 ITR 381 : (AIR 1967 SC 1435)] in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from…