Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 66Supreme Court of India1959#438 most cited

What is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

206

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37(1) · definition of expenditure · business expenditure deduction · commercial expediency · wholly and exclusively for business · expenditure irretrievably gone · Sections 30-36

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(h)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)accumulation of incomesection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)infrastructure facilitysection 13(1)section 30business expediencymercantile system of accountingcommercial expediencysection 40(a)(i)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle 2, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3158/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…tinction between the word ‘applied’ and the ‘expenditure’ has held that the scope of word ‘applied’ is wider than the word ‘expenditure’. While taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Private Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC), the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that the money or amount when applied to a purpose will not go out irretrievably. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that application of income/fund does not require that the fund/money has to go irretrievably. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by ld. DR. In fact, CBDT Circular No. 10…

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle 2, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3157/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…tinction between the word ‘applied’ and the ‘expenditure’ has held that the scope of word ‘applied’ is wider than the word ‘expenditure’. While taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Private Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC), the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that the money or amount when applied to a purpose will not go out irretrievably. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that application of income/fund does not require that the fund/money has to go irretrievably. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by ld. DR. In fact, CBDT Circular No. 10…

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle 2, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…tinction between the word ‘applied’ and the ‘expenditure’ has held that the scope of word ‘applied’ is wider than the word ‘expenditure’. While taking note of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. Private Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC), the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that the money or amount when applied to a purpose will not go out irretrievably. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that application of income/fund does not require that the fund/money has to go irretrievably. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by ld. DR. In fact, CBDT Circular No. 10…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 192Section 37(1)

…. 10. In support of his findings, the ld. AO placed reliance on decisions such as ACIT v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Eimco K.C.P. Ltd. v. CIT (159 CTR 137, SC), CIT v. Reinz Talbros Pvt. Ltd. (252 ITR 637, Delhi HC), and Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66, SC), to emphasize that deductible 4 Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited expenditure must be real, ascertained, and irrevocably incurred. 11. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance made by the AO in toto, observing that the AO had passed a well-reasoned and detailed order based on binding precedents. 12. It was noted that similar…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ot be treated as Offence and therefore levy on this account is also not Penal in nature. It is further submitted that in order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, as has been held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) the following conditions should be satisfied: (i) The expenditure in question should not be of the nature described under the specific provisions of sections 30 to 36; (ii) The expenditure should not be of the nature of capital expenditure; (iii) It should not be a personal expenditure; and (iv) The expenditure should have been laid out or exp…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle -1, Jaipur

ITA 810/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ot be treated as Offence and therefore levy on this account is also not Penal in nature. It is further submitted that in order to claim deduction of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, as has been held in the case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 37 ITR 66 (SC) the following conditions should be satisfied: (i) The expenditure in question should not be of the nature described under the specific provisions of sections 30 to 36; (ii) The expenditure should not be of the nature of capital expenditure; (iii) It should not be a personal expenditure; and (iv) The expenditure should have been laid out or exp…

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

…he assessee incurs any expenditure, which thereafter satisfies the requisite conditions of the sub-section (1). He submitted that the word "expenditure" has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 as denoting spending or paying out, i.e. something going out of the coffers of the assessee. It was put forth that by issuing shares at discounted premium, nothing is paid out by the company. Once there is no "paying out or away", the same cannot constitute an expenditure and resultantly section 37(1), which applies to only expenditure, cannot be a…

ACIT Spl. Range-7, New Delhi vs. Prudent-Agri Commodities India Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue partly allowed

ITA 1743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Y.: 2014-15 Acit, Special Range-7, Prudent Agri Commodities C.R. Building, New Delhi Vs India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Sunder Agri Commodities India Pvt. Ltd.) 68/2, Rnm Centre, Janpath New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aascs3922N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxv, New Delhi Dated 21.12.2018 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company E-Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2014-15 On 26.11.2014 Declaring An Income Of Rs. 1,06,26,080/- The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & Statutory Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.08.2015. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Was Issued On 06.06.2016 & 12.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 37

…es of investing in mutual funds. The other detailed submissions by the appellant have also been considered alongwith the assessment order. The following citations help us resolve the issues in that regard –  In the case of CIT v. India Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (37 ITR 66) [SC], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the word 'Expenditure' as follows - "Expenditure is equal to 'expense' and 'expense is money laid out by calculation and intention though in many uses of the word this element may not be present... But the idea of 'spending' in the sense of 'paying out or away' money is the primary meani…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 3150/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…are of the view that the amortization claim cannot be considered as 'an expenditure or allowance within the meaning of rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. As held by the Supreme Court in the case 01 Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. vs. CIT, West Bengal (1959)'37 ITR 66:(SC}, spending In the sense paying out or away of money is the primary meaning of expenditure. Expenditure is what is paid our or away and is something which is gone irretrievably Expenditure, which is deductible for income tax, is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expend…

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 3(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the

ITA 2594/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…are of the view that the amortization claim cannot be considered as 'an expenditure or allowance within the meaning of rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. As held by the Supreme Court in the case 01 Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. vs. CIT, West Bengal (1959)'37 ITR 66:(SC}, spending In the sense paying out or away of money is the primary meaning of expenditure. Expenditure is what is paid our or away and is something which is gone irretrievably Expenditure, which is deductible for income tax, is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expend…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. T Bhimjyani Realty Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…) noticed that the assessee has made provision for expenses in respect of which, it had already incurred liability. The Ld CIT(A), by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 66 held that there is no requirement of actual cash outflow in order to claim a liability as expenditure. He also relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Calcutta Company Ltd (37 ITR 1)(SC) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) in this regard. In the case of Rotork Controls India (P…

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present case we are concerned with an army of items of sophisticated (specialised) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other Page - 49 - of 70 ITA No.86 & 13 others /…

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 87/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Following Appeals Have Been Raised By The Appellant Assessee & Appellant Revenue Contesting Assessment / Appellate Orders For Ays 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. As The Grounds Of Appeal In Respective Appeals Of Assessee & Revenue Are Largely Common, All The Appeals Are Adjudicated Through This Common Orders. S. No. Appeal Nos. Ays Appellate Cit(A) Order Details Revenue A B C D E F 1 2 3

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 148

…obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present case we are concerned with an army of items of sophisticated (specialised) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other :- 50 -: ITA No.86 & 13 others /Chny/2018…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present case we are concerned with an army of items of sophisticated (specialised) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other Page - 49 - of 70 ITA No.86 & 13 others /…

DCIT Ltu 1, Chennai vs. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

…obligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present case we are concerned with an army of items of sophisticated (specialised) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other Page - 49 - of 70 ITA No.86 & 13 others /…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Care Health Insurance Limited (Earlier Known As M/S Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…ligation arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of which a reliable estimate is possible of the amount of obligation. As stated above, Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] is different from the present case. As stated above, in the present case we are concerned with an army of items of sophisticated (specialised) goods manufactured and sold by the assessee whereas Indian Molasses Co. [AIR 1959 SC 1049 : (1959) 37 ITR 66] was restricted to an individual retiree. On the other hand, Metal Box Co. of India [AIR 19…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…uction on this account, the onus of proving this fact was on the assessee. He points out that it is not on record whether the assessee has discharged this responsibility, as such in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. 37 ITR 66, this amount has to be treated as an advance payment, which is not an allowable deduction. Lastly he contended that these are continuous issues forming part of the assessment order for AY 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, and are at present pending adjudication before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 3.27. Substantially this question had fallen for cons…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 7517/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…olasses Co. P. Ltd. to the instant case 3.14 It is respectfully submitted that, recently your Honour while adjudicating the matter for AY 2013-14, placed incorrect reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. (37 ITR 66). Your Honour held that although such loss was revenue in nature, however, it did not qualify as "expenditure" and thus cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of the Act. Further, on the contention of the Appellant that the matter is covered in its favour by Apex Court Judgement in ca of Woodward Governer, your Honour held that the sam…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6913/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…olasses Co. P. Ltd. to the instant case 3.14 It is respectfully submitted that, recently your Honour while adjudicating the matter for AY 2013-14, placed incorrect reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. (37 ITR 66). Your Honour held that although such loss was revenue in nature, however, it did not qualify as "expenditure" and thus cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of the Act. Further, on the contention of the Appellant that the matter is covered in its favour by Apex Court Judgement in ca of Woodward Governer, your Honour held that the sam…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6081/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…olasses Co. P. Ltd. to the instant case 3.14 It is respectfully submitted that, recently your Honour while adjudicating the matter for AY 2013-14, placed incorrect reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. (37 ITR 66). Your Honour held that although such loss was revenue in nature, however, it did not qualify as "expenditure" and thus cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of the Act. Further, on the contention of the Appellant that the matter is covered in its favour by Apex Court Judgement in ca of Woodward Governer, your Honour held that the sam…