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

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…an and not of the revenue. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC) and J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). 15. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in all the three judgments is similar. These judgments state that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the poi…

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

…to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. The Rule laid down in the decision of WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD.(supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. WOOLLEN MANUFACTURERS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC). In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. HEWITT ROBINS (NEW YORK), [1982], 9 Taxman 250(CAL) the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal which held that the commission paid to those two companies was but reward for the assistance rendered by them in securing the contracts and since the payment of such commission was…

M/S Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Kota

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

ITA 617/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 37(1)

…see. Here, whatever decisions were taken by the assessee, has to be understood as taken out of commercial expediency. Kindly refer T.T. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (1980) 121 ITR 551 (Kar), CIT V/s Udhoji Shri Krishandas (1983) 139 ITR 827 (MP), JK Woollen Manufacturers 72 ITR 612 (SC)’’ 4.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below and justified the additions made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to uphold the addition/disallowance. 4.7 We have carefully considered the finding recorded in the impugned orders, the rival contentions raised by both the partie…

Highgrace Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 635/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue (Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). In CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), it was held by the SC that in deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial expediency and the principles of ordinary commercial trading. 10.1. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd…

Highgrace Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 634/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue (Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). In CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), it was held by the SC that in deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial expediency and the principles of ordinary commercial trading. 10.1. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd…

Elem Investments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 624/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…the purposes of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue (Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Pat); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). In CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC), it was held by the SC that in deciding whether a payment of money is a deductible expenditure, one has to take into consideration questions of commercial expediency and the principles of ordinary commercial trading. 10.1. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Bhagchand Jain, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1271/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145Section 145(3)

…sessee. Here, whatever decisions were taken by the assessee, has to be understood as taken out of commercial expediency. Kindly refer T.T. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT (1980) 121 ITR 551 (Kar), CIT v/s Udhoji Shrikrishnadas (1983) 139 ITR 827 (MP) JK Woolen Manufacturers 72 ITR 612 (SC). 35 ITA 1271/JP/2018 & CO 42/JP/2018_ ITO Vs Sh. Bhagchand Jain 1.3 Reasonable Claim made: It is submitted that looking to a huge turnover of more than Rs.9.40crores (approx.), claim of expenditure is otherwise very meager. Thus such a meager claim to achieve such a huge turnover is not at all unjustified. All these expenses were incurred ex…

Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7939/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7939/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rochem Separation Systems Dcit Cc-2(4) (India) Pvt. Ltd. Old Cgo Bldg (Annex), बिाम/ R. No. 802, 8Th Floor 101, Hdil Tower Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg M. K. Road Bandra (East),Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-1955-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 30/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 23/12/2016. 2. The Ld. Ar Submitted That Substantial Issues Are Covered By Earlier Orders Of Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case. The Copies Of The Orders

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…n for revenue authority to sit on the armchair of a businessman so as to ascertain the quantum of deduction allowable to the assessee as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. Pvt Ltd (1967; 65 ITR 381); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs. CIT (1969; 72 ITR 612) and also in Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015; 63 Taxmann.com 308). Another pertinent fact is that while framing assessment for AY 2013-14 (which is the first year of payment of rent), the lease rent paid the assessee as per the agreements has not been disturbed by Ld. AO. Therefore, on the facts & circumstances of the case, the revenue authorit…

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

…s 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. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980)124 ITR 188 (Gau). For the proposition that where the payment is approved by RBI, the…

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

…d that benefit of such expenditure was derived entirely by the 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). (…

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…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…the point of view of businessman and not that of the Revenue, as laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly in the following cases: - CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) - CIT v. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381 - 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 U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - C1T v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) -C1T v. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) -C1T v. Rockinan Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) -CIT v. EK…

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)

…held in many of the judgments some of which are as 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 Incom…

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)

…held in many of the judgments some of which are as 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 Incom…