J. K. Woolen Mills v. CIT

86 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1972#3651 most cited

What is J. K. Woolen Mills v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business expediency, judged from the businessman's point of view, not the revenue's.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

J.K. Woollen Mills v. CIT · 86 ITR 11 · commercial expediency · business expenses · allowable expenses · businessman's point of view · revenue's point of view · business expediency test · expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 131Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 24(1)trade creditorspercentage completion methodsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)section 56(2)(viib)section 36(1)(vii)section 41(1)share capital and share premiumsection 41commercial expediencyreasoned order

Judgments citing J. K. Woolen Mills v. CIT

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

…decisions:  S.A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd.[1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC)  CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 (SC)  J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT[1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC)  Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC)  Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Del)  Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 129 ITR 105 (Guj)  Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd. vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 236 (Del.);  DCIT vs ICICI Web Trade Ltd.: ITA No. 6559/M/2006 (Mum.). 14. With regard to disallowance of Rs. 3 lakhs for MIS information to M/s Big Think Media P Ltd, it is submitted that, since in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ANAND NVH PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

ITA 3612/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 35

…1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd [Del. HC] [2002] 121 Taxman 706 (Delhi) 2. CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) 3. J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), 4. Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972]86 ITR 11 (SC) 5. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC) 6. Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jamna Auto Industries [2008] 167 Taxman 192 (Punjab & Haryana) Considering the above discussion and case laws relied upon, it is held that the expenses claimed by the appellant are genuine business expenses exclusively for business exped…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5315/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…om businessman, point of view." P a g e | 7 DCIT Vs. M/s Shrish Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19) • CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381(SC) • J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT[1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC) • Aluminum Corpn. of India L TD. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) Reliance is further placed in: • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91ITR 544 (SC), wherein it has been held that it is not open to department to prescribe what expenditure appellant should incur and in what circumstances he should incur that expenditure. • CIT Vs. Wal Chand and Co. (P) Ltd. 65 ITR 381 (SC), wherein it has been, inter ali…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…est Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 CIT v. Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the aforesaid provision has been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01/04/2013…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…est Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 CIT v. Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the aforesaid provision has been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01/04/2013…

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

…est Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 CIT v. Dalmia Cement (254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The appellant submitted that the aforesaid provision has been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01/04/2013…

ACIT CIR -4(2) (1) , THANE vs. M/S. MUKTI GOLD PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…en otherwise, we are of the view that it is a pure business expense." Further, the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Mfg. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC) ; Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 158 Taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) has held that any expenditure incurred out of commercial expediency, the same is an allowable deduction. The commercial expediency is to be considered from the angle of businessman and not from the angle of Revenue. The Revenue cannot sit in the arm chair of businessma…

RAMESH KUMAR NANGALIA KATRA (HUF) vs. COMMISSIONER I.TAX - XVI, KOLKATA

ITA/449/2004HC Calcutta09 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 9, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.. … For Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Respondent The Court:- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th September, 2003 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. 1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Misdirected Itself In Law In Not Appreciating That All The Necessary Particulars For Verification Of The Allowability Of The Claim Of Deductibility Of The Commission Payment In Computation Of Income Were Found Out & Verified In The Order Of The First Appellate Authority, That Is The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Claim For Deduction Of The Commission Payment Made By The Assessing Officer & Whether The Finding Arrived At Was Perverse ?

Section 131Section 254(2)Section 260ASection 37

…the nature of commission. This has not been done by the revenue in the case on hand. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting the decision in SWEDESH COTTON MILLs CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was…

DCIT CC 44, MUMBAI vs. SOPARIWALA EXPORTS, MUMBAI

ITA 3039/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2021AY 2007-08
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92

…d upon the following decisions. i) CIT vs Sales Magnesite Pvt Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bom) ii) Amarjothi Pictures vs CIT (1968) 69 ITR 755 (Mad) iii) CIT vs Rajarani Exports Pvt Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 84 (Calcutta) iv) Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 11 (SC) v) CIT vs Nestle India Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 103 (Delhi) vi)JK Woollen Manufactures vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 In respect of the argument that once the payment is exclusively for business, it is not open to the AO to go into the reasonableness of the payment, the case laws cited were J K Woolen, Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. and Pheros & Co.…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…he assessee company and not by an affiliate company. In support of this, the assessee had relied upon the following case laws:- CIT vs Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381. (ii) J.K. Woolen Manufacturers vs CIT 72 ITR 612. (iii) Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT 86 ITR 11. (iv) CIT vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co.Ltd. 103 ITR 666. (v) Sassoon J David and Co.P. Ltd. vs CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). (vi) CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). (vii) SA Builders Limited vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). (viii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P. Ltd. 214 ITR 1(Bom). (ix) JR Patel & Sons P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 69 ITR 782 (Guj) . (x…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AJAY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…under:- a. CIT Vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Limited 103 ITR 66 (SC) b. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). c. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). d. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). e. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). f. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). g. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 35 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 46. The only reason given by the Ld. AO that sales in A. Y. 2009-10 to the sister concern are covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We fail to appreciate this reasoning an…

AJAY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…under:- a. CIT Vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Limited 103 ITR 66 (SC) b. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). c. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). d. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). e. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). f. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). g. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 35 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 46. The only reason given by the Ld. AO that sales in A. Y. 2009-10 to the sister concern are covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We fail to appreciate this reasoning an…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AJAY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…under:- a. CIT Vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Limited 103 ITR 66 (SC) b. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). c. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). d. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). e. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). f. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). g. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 35 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 46. The only reason given by the Ld. AO that sales in A. Y. 2009-10 to the sister concern are covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We fail to appreciate this reasoning an…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AJAY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…under:- a. CIT Vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Limited 103 ITR 66 (SC) b. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). c. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). d. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). e. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). f. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). g. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). 35 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 46. The only reason given by the Ld. AO that sales in A. Y. 2009-10 to the sister concern are covered u/s 40A (2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We fail to appreciate this reasoning an…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GANGES INTERNATIONALE PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3370/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3370/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ganges International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Vs. B-36, Lawrence Road, Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Industrial Area, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110 035. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacg4177F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ved Jain, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 25.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Commission Paid To M/S. Amikong Pte Ltd. For ₹.2,66,91,976/- & M/S. Poushali Sales Pvt. Ltd. For ₹.69,74,865/-.

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ved Jain, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘सी” "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3370/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Ganges International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Vs. B-36, Lawrence Road, Room No. 511, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Industrial Area, Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110 035. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACG4177F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपील…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commenc…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commenc…

BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park Pvt Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 1.8. It is also decided principle of law that once the business is set, all the expenses should be allowed. 1.9. In C/T v. Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 the Gujarat High Court noticed the clear distinction between "commenc…

SHRI ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2019[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020
For Appellant: Sh. M. L. Borad (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

…wance of the expenses and as to how these expenses are not related to the carrying on of regular business activities. 18. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Alluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 [SC] and various other similar decisions wherein it is held that where an expenditure is incurred for commercial expediency, the same shall be allowed as deduction u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if at the time the expenditure is incurred commercial expediency justifies it, it will be taken to be for the purpo…

SHREEJI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1729/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1729/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Shreeji Chemical Industries, V. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate Income Tax 903, Sapphire Complex Circle-2, Bharuch-394116. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009. [Pan: Aajfs 6791 D] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)

…ation. Learned Counsel also cited some case laws like DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj) and CIT v. Hindustan Development Corpn Ltd. [1998] 101 Taxman 146 (Cal) and Aluminum Corporation of India Limited v CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the learned D.R. supporting the orders of lower authorities submitted that the assessee has failed to provide any documentary evidence of services rendered by the so-called commission agents. Further, the parties to whom sales were claimed to have made have denied in response to notice under section 133(6) issued to the…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2