Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

118 ITR 200Supreme Court of India1979#826 most cited

What is Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT authority for?

The commercial expediency of an expenditure must be judged from the viewpoint of a businessman, and the Revenue authorities cannot dictate the necessity or quantum of such business expenditure.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT · commercial expediency · business expenditure · Section 37(1) · Section 36(1)(iii) · businessman's point of view · revenue authorities · allowable deduction · brand promotion expenses

Also reported as

10 CTR 375

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 14ASection 148Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151deletion of penaltytransfer pricing orderinterest free advancesfresh tangible materialsection 148(2)sanctioning authoritysection 57(iii)specified domestic transaction

Judgments citing Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT

ASST CIT CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal, we confirm the aforesaid action of the CIT(A). All the grounds raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed

ITA 6977/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawala &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4.83 crores. We observe that as per section 36(1)(iii), the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is allowed as deduction. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC), for claiming deductions under this sub-clause, the basic requirements are: (A) The money i.e. (capital) must have been borrowed by the assessee; (B) It must have been borrowed by the assessee for his business, profession or vocation; and (C) the assessee must have paid interest on the amount and claimed it as an allowance. 20.1 In the cas…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1252/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…pe and connotation and it does not mandate earning of income as a pre-condition for claiming deduction of interest. In this regard, we gainfully refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (118 ITR 200), which is as under:- “In order to claim deduction under clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 10 (Section 36(1)(iii) of IT Act), the assessee is required to satisfy three conditions, namely, that the money must have been borrowed by the assessee, that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and that the assessee must have p…

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1251/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Yamuna, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

…pe and connotation and it does not mandate earning of income as a pre-condition for claiming deduction of interest. In this regard, we gainfully refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (118 ITR 200), which is as under:- “In order to claim deduction under clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 10 (Section 36(1)(iii) of IT Act), the assessee is required to satisfy three conditions, namely, that the money must have been borrowed by the assessee, that it must have been borrowed for the purpose of business, and that the assessee must have p…

GAYATRI ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 467/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas & CA Swapnil DeshukhFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

…) The assessee must have paid interest on the borrowed amount i.e. he has shown the same as an item of expenditure. The above mentioned three conditions have been established legally by Supreme Court judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT. (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC). The burden of proving that the moneys borrowed has not been utilized for non business purpose and the investment on shares beyond track of business activities has all ingredients of "commercial expediency", is on the appellant. There are various case laws which supports this contention viz. CIT Vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport P. Ltd.61 ITR 4…

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 275/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Jaideep Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 44A

…liance is placed on following Judgments: (i) Shri Ram Bharose Sharma vs. The ITO Ward- 2(4) Jaipur - ITA No. 1066/JP/2016 – ITAT JAIPUR BENCH (ii) Ratanlal Dangi v/s ITO (1995) 51 TTJ 611 (JP) and CIT v/s Motilal (iii) Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (iv) Vedbai v/s Shantaram Baburam Patil & Others (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC) (v) Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has advocated for a very liberal approach while considering a case for condonation of delay. The following observations of the Hon'ble Court are notable: The legislature has conferred the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R R INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2502/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2502/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. R R Industries Limited, Income Tax, Tvk Industrial Estate, Company Circle 1(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacr 3594H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…suing business interest through subsidiaries can be termed as business of the appellant company? While referring to such question and elaborating the term 'for the purpose of business' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC) observed that the expression 'for the purpose of business' is wider in scope than the expression for the purpose of earning income, profits and gains. Therefore, the remarks of the AO that the investments had not brought in any income to the assessee and that the subsidiaries should have availed loan in their name has no substance. Further,…

ROY CHERIAN KAILATH,PATHANAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-4, KOLLAM

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

ITA 397/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…en allowed as drawings from KEI utilized for the purpose of capital contribution to the firm KF and placed 3 ITA No.397/Coch/2024. Sri.Roy Cherian Kailath. reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC). It was further contended that the reliance placed by the AO on the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me in the present appeal. W…

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

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

…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 only the assessee, which has sold the products in the open market. The assessee being exclusive seller of the l…

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1513/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 234ASection 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…ding also occurs in Section 57(iii) which reads as "for the purpose of making or earning income". This issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while giving judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Jatia V. CIT, (SC) 118 ITR 200 has established that the expression occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) is wider in scope than the expression occurring in Section 57(iii). Thus, meaning thereby that the scope for allowing a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) would be much wider than the one available under Section 57(iii). This phrase, as held by many legal pronouncement, is the mo…

J.K. JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

ITA 100/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 57

…interest. The assessee shall account for the interest as and when the amount is recovered and interest is received. Disallowance on notional basis deserves to be deleted. The following case-laws are quoted in support :- (i) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) (ii) LM Thaper Vs. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 577. (ii) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd Vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 836. The employees of today may become the ex- employees tomorrow. Any expenditure laid out or expended for their benefit, if it satisfies the other 16 J. K. Jewellers vs. ACIT requirements, must be allowed as deduction under s. 37(1). The fact th…

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

…se of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. No doubt, as held in 'Madhav Prasad Jatia versus CIT', [1979] 118 ITR 200 (SC), if the borrowed amount was donated for some sentimental or personal reasons and not on the ground of commercial expediency, interest thereon could not have been allowed under section 36(1)(iii)II of the Act. In Madhav Prasad's case the borrowed amount was donated to a college with a view to commemorate the memory of the assessee's deceased…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1519/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

…ntios; - 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) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del)…

CRM SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effect

ITA 1518/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 254

…ntios; - 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) - Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) - S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) - CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) - CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) - CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) - CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC) - CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del)…

DCIT CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NANDANBALA COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesse is also dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One Bkc, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 Bkc, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aavcs1575L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: HM Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(ii)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.1134/Mum/2023 CO 67/Mum/2023 DCIT 13(2)(2) Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Nandanbala Commercials Income Tax Circle 13(2)(2) Private Limited Room No. 452, 4 th Floor, (formerly known as Sanjay Infraspace Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 1401-A, Wing One BKC, M.K. Road, Plot No. C-66, G-Block, Mumbai – 400020 BKC, Bandra-East Mumbai -400 092 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAVCS1575L Appellant .. Respondent C.O No.67/Mum/2023…

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT (118 ITR 200) — Cited in 125 Judgments | BharatTax