How many judgments cite Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT?

140 judgments on BharatTax cite Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT (72 ITR 612), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 14A, Section 40A(2)(b), Section 142(2A).

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 148 Section 147 Section 14A Section 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 tds interest on interest closely held company section 40a(2)(b)short deduction of tax amp expenditure section 92ba accumulated profits true and full disclosure related party transaction business expediency

Judgments citing Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT

Paliwal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…o intervene therein nor he can replace the assessee. Here, whatever decisions were taken by the assessee, has to be understood as taken out of commercial expediency. Kindly refer T.T. Pvt Ltd v/s CIT 121 ITR 551 (Kar), 139 ITR 827 (MP) JK Woolen Manufacturers 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Wrong basis at all: It is further submitted that the ld. AO has taken own imaginary basis which is not a good basis looking to the nature of expenses or business of the assessee and made higher estimated disallowance. The AO has not brought any other single evidence or material on record before making disallowance. Therefore, also the en…

Gxs India Technology Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR)

Section 234DSection 28Section 37(1)

…see’s business. In the present case, the facts are different and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable in the present case. 11. The next judgment is the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of J.K. Woollen Mfg. Vs. CIT as reported in 72 ITR 612. In that case, the issue in dispute was regarding allowability of Rs. 75,465/- claimed by the assessee as commission paid to its general manager which was disallowed by the AO on this basis that it was excessive and quite unreasonable. In the present case, the issue in dispute is different and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable. 12.…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…al expediency of a transaction by relying on the following decisions namely (i) The Newton Studio Ltd Vs CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), (ii) Raman and Raman Ltd Vs CIT 46 ITR 400(Mad), (iii) CIT Vs Walchand & Co Pvt Ltd 65 ITR381 SC, (iv) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd 254 ITR 377 (Del). On the reasonability of the payment, the ld AR argued that value as per registered valuer’s report by the assesse…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

M/S. C D Security Services Network Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3491/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 43B

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 3491/Del./2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. C.D. Security Services vs. Income-tax Officer, Networks Ltd., 3B Masjid Moth, Ward 3(2), New Delhi South Extn. New Delhi. PAN- AAACC3815G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2014 of ld. CI…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1348/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09

Section 41(1)

…le, as it is the businessman's prerogative to decide the quantum of payment. Following further judgments support this view:- 1. Sasoon J. David & NCo. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). 2. CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. 65 ITR 381 (SC). 3. J. K. Woolen Mills Vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC). 4. Aluminium Corporation Vs. CIT 86 ITR 11 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Delhi Safe Deposit 133 ITR 756 (SC). 6. SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). ITA Nos. 898 & 899 and 1348 & 1349/Del./2013 25 4. Further, the AO has invoked Section 40A(2) for the sales made to sister concern. Section 40A(2) does not involve sale/revenue, but it is for expenses…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09

Section 41(1)

S.R. Protiens Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance of Rs 71,795 is hereby deleted

ITA 978/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…o intervene therein nor he can replace the assessee. Here, whatever decisions were taken by the assessee, has to be understood as taken out of commercial expediency. Kindly refer T.T. Pvt Ltd v/s CIT 121 ITR 551 (Kar), 139 ITR 827 (MP) JK Woolen Manufacturers 72 ITR 612 (SC). 12.3 Wrong basis at all: It is further submitted that the ld. AO has taken own imaginary basis which is not a good basis looking to the nature of expenses or business of the assessee and made higher estimated disallowance. The AO has not brought any other single evidence or material on record before making disallowance. Therefore, also the…

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…have been available at a less salary or whether the assessee could have managed to produce the same trading results by a cheaper expenditure or not is not the true test about the reasonableness of the expenditure.” - J.K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC) “Tribunal cannot determine remuneration which in their view should be paid to an employee. assessee societyis entitled to determine the remuneration which in their view should be paid to an employee.” From the above judgments, it is clear that the Revenue or the Court cannot justifiably claim toput itself in the armchair of a businessman or…

Galaxy Impex, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the disallowance made

ITA 529/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithivi Raj Meena (Add. CIT)

Section 145(3)

…tever 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 Manufactures V/S CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC). 9.2 It was further submitted that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) have provided any reasonable basis whatsoever for making the estimated disallowance. They also ignored the vital fact that in the past no such disallowance was ever made. Kindly refer assessment order (PB 111) where total Rs.7,84,388/- were claimed which came to 0.36% of…

Globex Energia P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1109/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Globex Energia P. Ltd. Acit 6(3) 4Th Floor, Sadhna House, 570 Mumbai- बनाम/ Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Vs. Behind Mahindra Towr, S. Worli Mumbai-400018 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadcg1161C Appellant By Shri Nishant Thakkar & Mis. Jasmin Amalsadvala (Ar) Revenue By Shri Prakash Mane (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2016 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj) 3. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 ITR 508,516) (Guj) 4. Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All) 5. Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Bom) 6. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC) 7. J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC) 8. Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC) 9. Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del) In following cases it has been held that expenses shall become deductible after setting up of the business, even if commencement of business has not yet taken place: 1.CIT Vs. Ralliwolf Ltd. (121 ITR 262) (Bom) 2.Saurashtra Cement & Chemical In…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ction and the reasonableness of the expenditure has to be seen from the point of view of businessman and not that of the Revenue, as laid down repeatedly in the following cases: i) CIT vs. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381(SC) ii) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC) iii) Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT: 86 ITR 11(SC) iv) CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.: 103 ITR 666 (SC) v) J.J. Enterprises v. CIT: 254 ITR 216 (SC) vi) CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) vii) S.A. Builders: 288 ITR 1 (SC) According to him further, since the aforesaid party was not related to the…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…seen from the point of view of businessman and not that of the Revenue, as laid down repeatedly in the following cases: • CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Limited: 53 ITR 140 (SC) • CIT v. Walchand & Co. etc. (1967) 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) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Pack…

Sh. Tarun Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 5893/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 44A

…nue can not challenge the wisdom of the assessee to carry on the business in the manner he likes, relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Walchand and Company pvt Ltd 65 ITR 381 and JK Woolen Manufactures Vs CIT reported in 72 ITR 612. Further he submitted that the case of the assessee was of no books of accounts and the return was filed u/s 44AD of the Act, the profit rate of 8% should have been applied in place of profit rate of 20% applied by the AO. The ld AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has not given any comparable case where profit rate of 20% in retail business exis…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Capital Partners, Mumbai

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

ITA 1024/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…ee and decide as to what expenditure has to be incurred by the assessee. The assessee also placed reliance on the following case laws in support of its contentions:- (a) CIT Vs. Walchand and Co. (P) Ltd (65 ITR 381)(SC) (b) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers Vs. CIT (72 ITR 612)(SC) (c) Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT (86 ITR 11)(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Oracle India Pvt Ltd (11 Taxmann.com 139)(Delhi) (e) J.K. Industries Ltd Vs. CIT (11 Taxmann.com 72)(Cal) (f) Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores Vs. CIT (95 ITR 664)(Patna) (g) CIT Vs. Shree Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (118 Taxmann 122)(Bom) 4. The Ld CIT(A)…

Flextronics Software Systems Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5550/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V.Mehrotra & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: O R D E R

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 263Section 92C

…ree to conduct business in the manner most suitable to it and the commercial or business expediency of incurring any expenditure is to be seen from the assessee’s point of view. Reliance was drawn on the following judgments: - J K Woolen Manufacturers vs. CIT 72 ITR 612 (SC) - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) ltd. 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC) - UOI vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) iv) No application of transfer pricing method by the TPO “It is submitted that the expenditure on payment of administrative/ corporate fee of…

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Radhika Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7378/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7378/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 2(3), R.No. 552, 5Th M/S. Radhika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 801, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai - 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr3010N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev Waglay

…ssee is not in dispute and the reason given by the CIT(A) is plausible reason, therefore the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the expenditure to the tune of Rs.15,56,400/- and also placed reliance upon the law settled in case of J.K.Wollen Manufacturers Vs CIT, 72 ITR 612 (SC). It is also argued that the assessee is a 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 corporate entity which has to incur some expenditure to maintain it even if it is not carrying on any business activity but the same is required to be allowed in the interest of justice. The learned representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the judgment de…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…he point of view of the businessman, and not of the Revenue. 36.19 In support of above submissions, the Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: - CIT vs. Walchand and Co. Private Ltd.: 65 ITR 381 (SC) - J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT: U.P: 72 ITR 612 (SC) - Aluminium Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. CIT: 86 ITR 11 (SC ) - CIT vs. United Hotels Ltd.: 177 Taxman 417 (Delhi) - CIT vs S. Krishna Rao : 76 ITR 664 (AP) - CIT v. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd: 316 ITR 426 (Raj. HC) - ACIT vs. Doon Valley Motors: 10 SOT 525 (Del Tr.) - Hero Motor Corp Ltd. vs. ACIT: 156 TTJ 139 (Del. Tri.) 36.20 Without prejudice…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ltd

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA/133/2007HC Karnataka23 Aug 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 260

…vs. Walchand and Co. Private Ltd., (1967) vol.LXV ITR 381, Eastern Investments Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal (ITR Vol.XX 1951 page 1) and J.K.Woolen Manufacturers vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. (1969 vol.72 ITR 612). 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 15…