Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT

72 ITR 612Supreme Court of India1969#721 most cited

What is Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT authority for?

The reasonableness of an expenditure for business purposes must be assessed from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and the primary motive to earn income directly is not a prerequisite for its admissibility as a deduction.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT · expenditure admissibility · business purposes · reasonableness of expenditure · businessman's viewpoint · revenue's viewpoint · section 10(2)(xv) · commercial expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 142(2A)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 40(3)short deduction of tdsinterest on interestclosely held companysection 40a(2)(b)short deduction of taxamp expendituresection 92baaccumulated profitstrue and full disclosurerelated party transactionbusiness expediency

Judgments citing Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT

Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2795/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2620/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

Sahara India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

Kasturi Medical Centre Private Limited, Joka, Thakurpukur vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.318/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasturi Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd……………….................................……….…Appellant 5, Diamond Harbour Road, 3A Bus Stand, Joka, Thakurpukur, W.B – 700104. [Pan: Aacck1872F] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi…….…………..…………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indernil Banerjee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Passed For The Assessment Year 2018–19, Whereby The Addition Of ₹85,40,911 Made By The Assessing Officer On Estimated Basis After Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Confirmed. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,05,59,220. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under The Scrutiny Assessment Scheme, 2019, Primarily On The Issue Of Large Refund Claimed Out Of Advance Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaires Were Duly Issued & Served.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on conjecture and surmises without properly verifying the evidences submitted by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) and CIT v Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Lal (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC) held that so long as the expenditure is real and incurred for business purposes, the Department cannot substitute its own wisdom to determine what is "reasonable." This doctrine has been reaffirmed in SA. Builders Laid. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) and Hero Cyc…

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

…elied upon by the appellant are directly applicable in the case. 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 appell…

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

…cases, that reasonableness of the expenditure has to be seen from 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 a…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…s. As held by various decisions including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); S. A. Builders v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC); Udaiput Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturing v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) have held that the expenditure incurred have to be adjudged from the point of view of businessmen and not the revenue. The revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circums…

Cobol Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

Ahluwalia Erectors and Febrications Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT Cir-1 Kota, Kota

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 953/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…he best judge to take care of its interest. The law is settled that the AO cannot sit on the arm chair of the businessman. The allowability of claimed interest therefore should have been allowed accordingly. For this proposition, kindly refer JK Wollen (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). 3.2 Supporting Case Laws: In the facts of the present case, a useful reference can be made to the celebrated decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT(A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 where it was held as under: “18. We have considered the submission of the respective parties. The question involved in this…

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

Mehrunnisan Sherwani, Okhla vs. Income Tax Officer W 28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4728/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…ss purposes. There is no dispute to the settle position as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions including DCIT vs. Core Health Care Ltd., 298 ITR 194 (SC); CIT vs. Walchand & Company P. Ltd., 65 ITR 381; J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT, 72 ITR 612; & SA Builders Ltd. vs CIT 288 ITR 1. However, in the first-place onus is on the assessee to show that the interest- bearing funds were advanced for business purposes and for commercial expediency. Thus, in light of uncontroverted findings of the First Appellate Authority, we see no reason to interfere with findings of the CIT(A), hence, the same…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is…

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…expenditure and reasonableness DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. thereof has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and cannot be dictated by the Revenue authorities [Refer, CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC), Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT UP: 118 ITR 200 (SC) and S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC)] That apart, in the instant case, there is no such incidental benefit, even remotely, flowing to KC and LHCC because the said entities have not sold any product in open market and it is…

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

…e of an expenditure or an investment vide 6 M/s. Raghav Finvest 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 inser…

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

…e of an expenditure or an investment vide 6 M/s. Raghav Finvest 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 inser…