Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

82 ITR 363Supreme Court of India1971#89 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Tax liability for an item of income or expenditure is determined solely by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Entries in an assessee's books of account are not conclusive and do not govern the taxability or deductibility of an item, as the legal rights and obligations under the Act prevail.

654

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 1998 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 82 ITR 363 SC · tax liability · accounting entries · books of account · Income-tax Act provisions · tax law vs accounting · section 145 · mercantile system · book profits · section 115JB · section 37(1) · section 43B

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 14ASection 115JBSection 143(1)Section 145
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhcsection 80hhbook profitsrevenue expendituresection 80iamercantile system of accountingcapital expendituresection 115jsection 80idisallowance under section 14asection 37(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Ajay Kumar Anthati, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 806/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ajay Kumar Anthati, Income-Tax, Hyderabad. Circle– 4(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Adipa 6106G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Assessee By: Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Date Of Hearing: 06/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Ay 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 1, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 21/02/2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act” On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri K.V. ChalamaiahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Ajay Kumar Anthati, Income-tax, Hyderabad. Circle– 4(1), Hyderabad. PAN – ADIPA 6106G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Assessee by: Shri K.V. Chalamaiah Date of hearing: 06/04/2021 Date of pronouncement: 19/05/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. Sahu, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is directed against the CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad’s order, dated 21/02/2019 involving proceed…

Amar Adak, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T.Circle-46, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2642/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…ccount as admittedly no books of account are maintained. Thus based on the real income thereon no addition can be made based on these false or bogus figures. 6.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [1972] 82 ITR 363 (SC) laid down that the taxability or otherwise on a particular item under the Income Tax Act, 1961 will have to depend on the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the existence or the absence of entries in the books of account. 6.2. The CBDT in Circular no. 14(XL-35) dated 11.4.1955 and letter No. F.81/27/65- IT(B) dated 18.5.1965 stated…

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tm International Logistics Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 2567/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 37Section 80I

…e A.O and allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of Rs.1,57,12,909/- and it is a trite law that the accounting terminology used in the books of accounts cannot determine the nature of the transaction [Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. Thus we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and so we confirm the same. 15. Coming to the cross-objection of the assessee is concerned, we note that even though the assessee had raised two grounds of appeal initially, now before us the assessee has raised additional grounds vide letter dated on 04.03.2021. On a perusal of the…

Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4133/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ssessment order was already finalised by the Assessing Officer on 9/3/2016. The claim of ESOP expenditure has been determined as allowable expenditure by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following cases:- (a) Kedarnath Jute Mill Company Ltd. 82 ITR 363. (b) (b) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. 166 ITR 1 (c) United Commercial Bank 240 ITR 355 (d) Taparia Tools Ltd. 372 ITR 605 These expenses were incurred in the course of business of assessee and were let out as well as expanded wholly and exclusively for the business purpose only. Though in the original order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has no…

DCIT, CC-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3003/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R.Sathyanarayanan, C.A ""For Respondent: 11.02.2021

…, merely because a different treatment was given in books of account could not be a factor which would deprive assessee from claiming entire expenditure as a deduction - Held Yes [para 19][ in favour of assessee ]. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co, Ltd. v. CIT (1971) (82 ITR 363 (SC) S. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Business expenditure – Allowablity of - assessment year 1955-56 – assessee company claimed deduction on account of sales tax determined by sales tax authorities to be payable on sales made by assessee during relevant assessment year – ITO disallowed claim on the ground that assessee had denied its liabili…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…the following decisions, he submitted that the entries made in the books of account are not determinative of the ambit of taxation. If an item of per the provisions of the Act and not as per books of account:- i) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC); ii) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 116 ITR 1 (SC); iii) Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 505 (SC); iv) CIT vs. UP Electronics Corporation Ltd., 282 ITR 470 (All) 114.6 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…the following decisions, he submitted that the entries made in the books of account are not determinative of the ambit of taxation. If an item of per the provisions of the Act and not as per books of account:- i) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC); ii) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 116 ITR 1 (SC); iii) Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 505 (SC); iv) CIT vs. UP Electronics Corporation Ltd., 282 ITR 470 (All) 114.6 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of…

M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…the following decisions, he submitted that the entries made in the books of account are not determinative of the ambit of taxation. If an item of per the provisions of the Act and not as per books of account:- i) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC); ii) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 116 ITR 1 (SC); iii) Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 505 (SC); iv) CIT vs. UP Electronics Corporation Ltd., 282 ITR 470 (All) 114.6 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…the following decisions, he submitted that the entries made in the books of account are not determinative of the ambit of taxation. If an item of per the provisions of the Act and not as per books of account:- i) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC); ii) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 116 ITR 1 (SC); iii) Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 505 (SC); iv) CIT vs. UP Electronics Corporation Ltd., 282 ITR 470 (All) 114.6 We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/266/2013HC Karnataka09 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 43B

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.266 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-11(2), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD., OFF: TUMUKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPUR P.O. BANGALORE-560022. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. I…

Smt. Nisha Jain, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 1368/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

…to make the addition particularly when it is a settled law that making of accounting entries in the books of accounts is not relevant for determination of income under the Income Tax Act as held by Supreme Court in case ofKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 82 ITR 363 and Satluj Cotton Mills Vs CIT 116 ITR 1. 12. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:- “7.3.1 The contention in appeal is that the assessee had billed Bhagat Public School Rs.48,18,961/- for advertisement charges and considered these bills in turnover. Subsequently, the order was not implemented so the effe…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1521/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1520/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1518/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1517/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

M/S. Alpha Design Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1516/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth Chandrashekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37

…ch would deprive the assessee from claiming the entire expenditure as a deduction. It has been determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act (See – Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172/93 Taxman 502 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and United Commercial Bank vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 355/106 Taxman 601 (SC).” 23. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A)’s observation that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case wrongly proceeded to bi…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 859/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…reatment in the books of account is not determinative for the allowability of any expense under the provisions of Act. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs. Sutlet Cottons Mills Supply Agency 100 ITR 706 (SC). 11.2 Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO. 11.3 We have given thoughtful consideration of the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the pipeline being laid down as per the provisions of the Petroleum And Mineral Pipelines Act, 1952. This…

Gail (India) Ltd vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 858/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…reatment in the books of account is not determinative for the allowability of any expense under the provisions of Act. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs. Sutlet Cottons Mills Supply Agency 100 ITR 706 (SC). 11.2 Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO. 11.3 We have given thoughtful consideration of the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the pipeline being laid down as per the provisions of the Petroleum And Mineral Pipelines Act, 1952. This…

Mr. Rajan Mahajan Dgm (F&A) vs. Addl. CIT, Range-12

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 301/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv.; MsFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14A

…reatment in the books of account is not determinative for the allowability of any expense under the provisions of Act. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 and CIT vs. Sutlet Cottons Mills Supply Agency 100 ITR 706 (SC). 11.2 Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO. 11.3 We have given thoughtful consideration of the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the pipeline being laid down as per the provisions of the Petroleum And Mineral Pipelines Act, 1952. This…