Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. CIT(Cal)

279 ITR 51High Court2005#5215 most cited

What is Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. CIT(Cal) authority for?

The mere existence of an agreement and actual payment does not conclusively establish that an expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee must prove that the business has commenced and expenses relate to business activity.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. CIT · Section 37 · business expenditure · wholly and exclusively for business · marketing expenses · service charges · commencement of business · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80IBSection 10CCBSection 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 153a proceedingsexplanation to section 37section 158bdgoing concernprohibited by lawbusiness expediencyinitial assessment yearsection 30section 246section 80icsection 246a

Judgments citing Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. CIT(Cal)

JAJOO ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 6343/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Cc – 4(3) Jajoo Enterprises Ltd Flat No. 42/B, Jaihind Estate, 3Rd Floor, Ld.Dr. A.M Road, Maharashtra – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj9939L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

…he existence of an agreement between the employer and the employee and the fact of actual payment, the Income-tax Officer must hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the business" 8.14. In the case of Premier Breweries Ltd., 279 ITR 51, 196 CTR 496 (Ker HC), it has been held that- *6. The assessee who had claimed an amount of Rs. 59,85,644 as marketing expenses and service charges has the right to explain under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, Section 37 is a residuary provision explaining the allowance on items of business expenditure. It provides for the deduction of all exp…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम DCIT Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No.AATPS8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5420/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Subhash Chander Sehgal, DCIT Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, Vs. Circle 19(1) & 19(2) C/o RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, New Delhi. South Exten…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम DCIT Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No.AATPS8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5420/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Subhash Chander Sehgal, DCIT Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, Vs. Circle 19(1) & 19(2) C/o RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, New Delhi. South Exten…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम DCIT Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN No.AATPS8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5420/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Subhash Chander Sehgal, DCIT Block A-3, LSC, Janakpuri, Vs. Circle 19(1) & 19(2) C/o RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, New Delhi. South Exten…

NSK ADVISORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Waseem KhanFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…d the said disallowance by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. [2005] 279 ITR 51 (Ker.) which has held that whether the business has commenced and that the assessee has incurred expenses relating to the said business activity has to be proved by the assessee and if the assessee fails to discharge its onus, the same is liable to be disallowed. We are inclined to decide the issue of validity of the assessment order passed u/s.…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…he mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal settlement between directors of assessee company and rival factions — Business interest of assessee company not involved in such sale — Not Business loss CITVs Sharath Investments P. Ltd. (Kar) 317 ITR 294. • Chit loss not allowable as business expenditure since it was not a…

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 185/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

…re Inc, a 19.3% shareholder of the assessee, without even disclosing it under related party disclosure in its annual report. 2.4. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Premier Breweries (279 ITR 51)(Ker) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 372 ITR 180 (SC) wherein it was held that mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement, is not conclusive of fact that expenditure is being paid off wholly and exclusively for purpose of business ........ there was no sufficient materials to allow payment in respect…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3142/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

…re Inc, a 19.3% shareholder of the assessee, without even disclosing it under related party disclosure in its annual report. 2.4. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Premier Breweries (279 ITR 51)(Ker) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 372 ITR 180 (SC) wherein it was held that mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement, is not conclusive of fact that expenditure is being paid off wholly and exclusively for purpose of business ........ there was no sufficient materials to allow payment in respect…

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3063/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

For Appellant: Mr.P.Murali Mohan, CA
Section 143(3)

…re Inc, a 19.3% shareholder of the assessee, without even disclosing it under related party disclosure in its annual report. 2.4. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Premier Breweries (279 ITR 51)(Ker) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 372 ITR 180 (SC) wherein it was held that mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement, is not conclusive of fact that expenditure is being paid off wholly and exclusively for purpose of business ........ there was no sufficient materials to allow payment in respect…

AVLON SYNTEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1052/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Vishwakarma Chambers, . Of Income Tax, Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Circle-1, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aacca 0034 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari – CAFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.DR
Section 131

…and exclusively for the purpose of business. The various decisions including that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madanlal Vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439; Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193 and Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. DCIT 40 taxman.com 166 (Guj) as relied upon by the AO; are squarely applicable on the facts of the case. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 8.1 Without prejudice to the above, I would like to discuss and examine the claim made in appeal that Arlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd.,…

RAJ KUMAR BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 853/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

…acts of the case of Siddho Mai & Sons V/s ITO 122 ITR 839 are different from the facts of the case of assessee. In this case commission was paid to minor sons for taking deposits from them only. Likewise the facts of the case of CIT V/s Premier Breweries Ltd 279 ITR 51 (Kerala) are also different from the facts of the case of assessee as in the case of assessee all the payees of commission has accepted that they have worked for the assessee and have procured the business for the assessee and have received the payment from the assessee. In this case in enquires the facts were different & it was proved that the pa…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MALABAR HOTELS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 2832/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 40A(2)(a)

…ing to the decision of expenditure which provide circumstantial evidence to prove that the transaction is only make-believe in nature. 2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of judgement in the case of i)CIT Vs Premier Breweries Ltd.(Kerala)(2005)279 ITR 51 where in it is held that the mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the language employed in Section 40A(2)(a) which reads thus: Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in r…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALABAR HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 2364/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 40A(2)(a)

…ing to the decision of expenditure which provide circumstantial evidence to prove that the transaction is only make-believe in nature. 2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of judgement in the case of i)CIT Vs Premier Breweries Ltd.(Kerala)(2005)279 ITR 51 where in it is held that the mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the language employed in Section 40A(2)(a) which reads thus: Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in r…

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. NISHITH M. DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…gar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspapers Ltd. 53 ITR 250 (SC), Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. 36 ITR 329 (Bom), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh s. CIT 193 ITR 321 & CIT vs. Gopala Naicker Bangura 344 ITR 297. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted fact on record that assessee has taken t…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. NISHITH DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2562/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 24Section 57

…gar 185 ITR 564 and the Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision relied by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005- 06 in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 227 ITR 172, Sasson J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. 118 ITR 261 (SC), Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. 272 ITR 193, Express Newspapers Ltd. 53 ITR 250 (SC), Ormerods (India) (P) Ltd. 36 ITR 329 (Bom), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh s. CIT 193 ITR 321 & CIT vs. Gopala Naicker Bangura 344 ITR 297. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is submitted fact on record that assessee has taken t…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2