Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 143(2), Section 194H, Section 37, Section 44AE.

(India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (254 ITR 673), spanning 2016 to 2025.

254 ITR 673High Court2002#9595 most cited

What is (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Ad hoc additions to income are not legally sustainable. Mere non-compliance with notices under section 133(6) does not invalidate genuine expenditure. Losses incidental to business should be allowed as deductions in the year of discovery.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dinesh Mills Ltd v CIT · 254 ITR 673 · ad hoc additions · 133(6) non-compliance · business loss deduction · year of discovery · incidental loss

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194H Section 37 Section 44AE

Judgments citing (India) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Jaipur Golden Transport Co Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

…nouncements, it has been held that ad hoc additions are not tenable in law. This has been held in:- a) 102 TTJ 882 (Pune) Lavrids Knudsen Maskin fabrik (India) Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax b) 43 DTR 116 (TM) (Agra) ITO vs Mayur Aggarwal c) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs CIT d) 73 ITD 189 (Del) Goodyear India Ltd vs ITO e) 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) Hughes Escorts Communications Limited vs JCIT f) 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) Sunder Mal Sat Pal vs ITO g) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh) DCIT vs Surface Finishing Equipment h) 237 ITR 570 (SC) Manika Gems &Ors v ACIT i) 104 TTJ 254 (Pune) Coco Cola (India) Ltd v JCIT j) 25…

Anita Lahu Ghadge, Mumbai vs. Circle41(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee fail and the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2623/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranita Lahu Ghadge, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Swapnapurti, 33-D, Kamgar Income Tax, Circle – 26(1), बनाम Chs Ltd., S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Near Nandkeshwar Mandir, Kurla Complex, Bandra Kamgar Nagar, Kurla East, (East), Mumbai – 400051, Mumbai–400024, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afqpg3328A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Nikam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Anita Lahu Ghadge, v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Swapnapurti, 33-D, Kamgar Income Tax, Circle – 26(1), बनाम CHS Ltd., S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Near Nandkeshwar Mandir, Kurla Complex, Bandra Kamgar Nagar, Kurla East, (East), Mumbai – 400051, Mumbai–400024, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFQPG3328A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Nikam, AR Respondent by : Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR) Date of…

Measage.Tau Agro Sales Private Limited, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Faridkot

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

…business. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions namely, CIT v. Kohinoor Paper Products [1997] 92 I.T.A. Nos. 323 to 325/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2015-16 12 Taxman 316/226 ITR 220 (MP), Dinesh Mills Ltd vs. CIT, 254 ITR 673 (Guj). Therefore, the disallowance of expensesamount of Rs. 32,995/- is quashed. ITA 324/Asr/2019 11. Ground No. 3, Disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii): In argument ld. Counsel placed that the Appellant Company has purchased goods for Rs.4.22 Crore in AY 14-15. Ltd. for purchase of material for Appellant & during the year the said company had credit…

Measage Tau Agro Sales Private Limited, Faridkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Ferozepur

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 1/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri T. S. Kapoorआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri T. P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate

…enses therefore disallowed Rs. 1,39,846/- and Rs. 1,00,250/- being 20% of the total expenses. The appellant relied on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company Vs. CIT (253 ITR 749) and Dinesh Mills Ltd. 254 ITR 673 where it has been held that the disallowance on account of personal element in foreign travelling is not justified therefore respectfully following the above decisions the addition made by the AO is deleted. The ground is allowed.” 8. We find that the AO in the earlier year had disallowed travelling expenses by holding the same observations as i…

Shri Poojan K. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1539/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Poojan K. Patel, A.C.I.T., 4, Jaldarshan, Vs. Circle-10, Opp. Natraj Cinema, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

Section 36

…Y, 2002-03, however, the assessee has riot claimed this as a loss due to embezzlement in the A.Y. relevant to A.Y. 2002-03. The contention of the appellant that loss is crystallized during the year under appeal is not tenable. In the case of Dinesh Mills Ltd. 254 ITR 673 the Hon'ble jurisdiction! High Court has held that loss on account of embezzlement by an employee is allowed as deduction in the previous year in which such embezzlement is discovered and not the year in which the money is embezzled. Further once the debtors had paid the amount, the said sum has lost its character as debt. The said sum was not re…

M/S. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5048/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…on & Steel Co. 253 ITR 749 (Guj) " Coca Cola India Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 102 ITD 134 (Pune) " LavridsKnudsanMaskinfabrik (India) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Pune) 882 " DCIT VS Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (1999) 76 ITD (Del) 32 " Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) " CIT vs. S.S.P. (P) Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxman 386 (P&H) " Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ld. Vs. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 269 (Del) ) 37. The Ld. DR relied upon Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The basis for this addition made by the Assessing Officer was i…

M/S. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5047/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Ranee Agency, Kolkata vs. ITO., WD - 55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1379/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Utpal Ranjan Dutt, Partner(Ranee Agency)For Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 29Section 37(1)

…should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it is discovered, and the bifurcation of the same as between what was irretrievably loss and what was possible of recovery is therefore unnecessary as was held in the case of Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 673 (Guj.). About the treatment of subsequent recovery of embezzled amount, - The Allahabad High Court in the case of Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 776 held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of loss on account of theft, pilferage. Etc,. as business loss and if any mone…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asas Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4359/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…& Steel Co. 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) " Coca Cola India Ltd. Vs JCIT (2006) 102 ITD 134 (Pune) " Lavrids Knudsan Maskin Fabrik (India) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Pune) 882 " DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (1999) 76 ITD (Del) 32 " Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj.) " CIT Vs S.S.P. (P) Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxman 386 (P&H) " Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 332 ITR 269 (Del.) 9. It was further submitted that the assessee is in the business of liasioning, auxiliary and syndication. Therefore, 7 ASAS Investments Pvt. Ltd. it required to conduct various meetings with the clients at regular inte…

M/S. Shivgori Builders (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ting the percentage of 50% while making the disallowance. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Lavrids Knudsen Maskinfabrik (India) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT 102 TTJ 882 (Pune) " ITO Vs Mayur Aggarwal 43 DTR 116 (TM) (Agra) " Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 673 (Guj) " Goodyear India Ltd. Vs ITO 73 ITD 189 (Del) " Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. Vs JCIT 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) " Sunder Mal Sat Pal Vs ITO 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) " Trimurti Salt Company Vs ITO 12 TTJ 485 (Cal) " State of Orissa Vs Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 ITR 690 (SC) 6. The another submissions of the assessee has been incorporated b…