Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital

83 ITR 377Supreme Court of India1972#5836 most cited

What is Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital authority for?

Expenditure incurred by a holding company in making investments in its subsidiaries can be treated as a business activity and thus, the expenditure is allowable as a business deduction.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT · CIT v. Upasana Hospital · CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. · business expenditure · holding company · investments in subsidiary · section 37(1) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 71Section 80M

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)section 80msection 71legal expensesamalgamationprofits and gains of business or professionsection 36(1)(iii)section 37(1)income from other sourcessection 37section 14adouble taxation

Judgments citing Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital

Lifestyle and Media Holdings Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3714/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3714/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Lifestyle & Media Holding Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known As Ndtv Vs. C.R. Building, Lifestyle Holdings Limited) New Delhi. Plot No.09, Unit No. 055, Ground Floor Capia, Corporate Suites, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. Pan-Aadcn3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025 O R D E R [ Per Bench: All The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] For Ay 2014-15 To 1016017 & Having Common Issues, Therefore, They Are Dispose- Off By A Common Order. First, We Taken Assessee Appeal For Ay 2014-15 In Ita No. 64/Del/2019. Ita No.3714/Del/2024 & Lifestyle & Media Holdings Limited Vs. Dci

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

…sessment for AY 2012-13 accepting this very expenditure claim. He next quotes various judicial precedents i.e Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC); CIT Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Madras) and ESSAR Investments Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 7 SOT 378 (Mum) that a business expenditure could not be disallowed even in an instant of a holding company having made investments in subsidiary as such an activity could indeed be treated as business itself. We find merit in the assessee’…

Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3714/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Lifestyle & Media Holding Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known As Ndtv Vs. C.R. Building, Lifestyle Holdings Limited) New Delhi. Plot No.09, Unit No. 055, Ground Floor Capia, Corporate Suites, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. Pan-Aadcn3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025 O R D E R [ Per Bench: All The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] For Ay 2014-15 To 1016017 & Having Common Issues, Therefore, They Are Dispose- Off By A Common Order. First, We Taken Assessee Appeal For Ay 2014-15 In Ita No. 64/Del/2019. Ita No.3714/Del/2024 & Lifestyle & Media Holdings Limited Vs. Dci

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

…sessment for AY 2012-13 accepting this very expenditure claim. He next quotes various judicial precedents i.e Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC); CIT Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Madras) and ESSAR Investments Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 7 SOT 378 (Mum) that a business expenditure could not be disallowed even in an instant of a holding company having made investments in subsidiary as such an activity could indeed be treated as business itself. We find merit in the assessee’…

Lifestyle and Media Holding Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.3714/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Lifestyle & Media Holding Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known As Ndtv Vs. C.R. Building, Lifestyle Holdings Limited) New Delhi. Plot No.09, Unit No. 055, Ground Floor Capia, Corporate Suites, Jasola, New Delhi-110025. Pan-Aadcn3076F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri R.P. Mall, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025 O R D E R [ Per Bench: All The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] For Ay 2014-15 To 1016017 & Having Common Issues, Therefore, They Are Dispose- Off By A Common Order. First, We Taken Assessee Appeal For Ay 2014-15 In Ita No. 64/Del/2019. Ita No.3714/Del/2024 & Lifestyle & Media Holdings Limited Vs. Dci

Section 143(3)Section 2(13)Section 71

…sessment for AY 2012-13 accepting this very expenditure claim. He next quotes various judicial precedents i.e Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC); CIT Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Madras) and ESSAR Investments Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 7 SOT 378 (Mum) that a business expenditure could not be disallowed even in an instant of a holding company having made investments in subsidiary as such an activity could indeed be treated as business itself. We find merit in the assessee’…

Ndtv Networks Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6647/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Ndtv Networks Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcn3073A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 37(1)

…sessment for AY 2012-13 accepting this very expenditure claim. He next quotes various judicial precedents i.e Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC); CIT Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 (Madras) and ESSAR Investments Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2006) 7 SOT 378 (Mum) that a business expenditure could not be disallowed even in an instant of a holding company having made investments in subsidiary as such an activity could indeed be treated as business itself. We find merit in the assessee’…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…stments is not alien to income tax law. While dealing with the concept of 'business of holding investments', we may refer to following observations made by legendry Justice K S Hegde (as he then was) in the case of CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd [[1972]83 ITR 377 (SC)] at page 382-383……..” b) DCIT Vs Colgate Palmolive India Ltd (ITA 5485/Mum/2009) (Mumbai ITAT)(Para 7 onwards – Pg. 128 -130, Pg. 124-135 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) (wherein, one of the Hon‘ble Members, the Hon‘ble VP is a party to the order). The Hon‘ble Tribunal has, inter alia, negated the contention of the Ld. AO that in books of accou…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…stments is not alien to income tax law. While dealing with the concept of 'business of holding investments', we may refer to following observations made by legendry Justice K S Hegde (as he then was) in the case of CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd [[1972]83 ITR 377 (SC)] at page 382-383……..” b) DCIT Vs Colgate Palmolive India Ltd (ITA 5485/Mum/2009) (Mumbai ITAT)(Para 7 onwards – Pg. 128 -130, Pg. 124-135 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. I) (wherein, one of the Hon‘ble Members, the Hon‘ble VP is a party to the order). The Hon‘ble Tribunal has, inter alia, negated the contention of the Ld. AO that in books of accou…

Population Services International, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 44ASection 80G

…tted, organized course of activity for earning profits as ‘profit motive’ is an essential requisite for conducting business. In this regard, he drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. 83 ITR 377 (SC). 10. He submitted, even assuming that the assessee undertook sale of its own branded products, by no stretch of imagination it can be labeled as ‘business’/’commercial activity’, as, there is no profit motive, much less, any question of profit actually being generated on sale of such products. He submitted, as per the agreement, the assess…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…r premium was correctly allowed. The Ld. A.R. submitted that since the assessee is in the business of investments a concept which has 18 M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. been recognised even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself in CIT vs. Distributor (Broda Pvt. Ltd.) 83 ITR 377 and thus claim of deduction of prorata premium was rightly allowed by the AO. The Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Industries Ltd. vs. ITO Ward - 2(3)(3) wherein a similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by referring to and following the judgment of Hon’ble…

Harshit Finlease & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4991/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…axable in the hands of the assessee. The learned counsel of the assessee further relied upon several case laws in support of his position, including the following. i) CIT vs Amalgamation (P.) Ltd., 226 ITR 188 (SC) ii) CIT vs Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd., 83 ITR 377 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shiv Raj Gupta, 372 ITR 337 (Delhi) iv) CIT vs Govindlal C. Mandhana (HUF), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010]…

Harshit Finlease & Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4989/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Shri Harsh Kothari &For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 234BSection 54E

…axable in the hands of the assessee. The learned counsel of the assessee further relied upon several case laws in support of his position, including the following. i) CIT vs Amalgamation (P.) Ltd., 226 ITR 188 (SC) ii) CIT vs Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd., 83 ITR 377 (SC) iii) CIT vs Shiv Raj Gupta, 372 ITR 337 (Delhi) iv) CIT vs Govindlal C. Mandhana (HUF), ITA Nos. 1221 & 1222 of 2012 dated 14.11.2014 (Bombay High Court) v) ACIT vs Savita N. Mandhana, ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 dated 07.10.2011 vi) Shuklendu A. Baji vs DCIT, ITA No. 5209/Mum/2017 dated 05.02.2018 vii) Tecumseh India (P.) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [2010]…

I-Ven Medicare India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for all years under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 234C

….) 6 Suresh Babulal Shah(HUF) Vs DCIT (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 105 (Pune- Trib.) 7 ACIT Vs Jignesh Madhukant Mehta (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 349 (Mumbi- Trib.) 8 CIT Vs Trishul Investments LTd. (2008) 305 ITR 434(Mad-HC) 9 CIT Vs Distributors (Baroda) (P)Ltd. (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC) 10 G.Venkataswami Naidu & Co., Vs CIT (1959) 36 ITR 594(SC) 11 CIT Vs Hindustan Industrial Agencies P.Ltd., 12 CIT Vs Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 13 Gopal Purohit Vs JCIT (2009) 122 TTJ 0087 14 Copy of Circular No.6/2016 dated 29-02-2016 15 Copy of Circular 225/12/2016 dated 02-05-2016 7. On the contrary, Ld.DR placed reliance upon CBDT…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Tiles and Marble P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5446/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DRFor Respondent: Shri Pramila Ishwar Rathi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 40Section 404

…1- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had closed its business activity and only having income from houses property and other sources against which the claim of expenses is not allowed as held in case pf CIT Vs Distributors (Baroda) PVT Ltd (1972) 83 ITR 377 (SC), Narain Swadeshi Wvg Mills CEPT (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC), CIT Vs. Admirality Flats Motel (1982).” 3. Brief facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed from the P& L account that the assessee had credited the rental income of ₹ 2,62,36,997/- which was shown under the head “income from business and profession” and…

M.Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, RG.2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3739/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 14A

…making investment in other companies is also one of the objects of the assessee company. In support of such contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 188; and ii) CIT v/s Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd., 83 ITR 377. 29. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority submitted that nothing has been brought on record to prove that the main object of the assessee is to do business in investment in other companies. She submitted, as per the material on record, the main objects…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Ventures Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6503/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narsimha Chary

Section 143(3)

…8 ITR 482 (Del), SA Builders – 288 ITR 1 (SC), Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. – 379 ITR 347 (SC), Srishti Securities P. Ltd. – 321 ITR 498 (Bom.) (501), Phil Corporation Ltd. – 244 CTR 226 (Bom.), Jardine Henderson Ltd. – 210 ITR 981 (Cal.), 5 Distributors Baroda – 83 ITR 377 (SC), Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria - 208 ITR 616 (Cal.), Laxmi Agents – 125 ITR 227 (Guj.) and Premier Poly Sacks (P) Ltd. – 321 ITR 450 (Mad.). The decisions relied upon by the assessee are to the affect that the acquisition of controlling interest in a company is in furtherance of the business purpose of the assessee. In the case on hand the inves…

Bsi Securities International Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6992/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh SapariaFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop
Section 50C

…substantial and systematic or organised course of activity or conduct with a set purpose'. The Supreme Court has applied following tests to determine what constitutes main or 'principal or primary business in the case of CIT vs Distributors (Baroda) Put. LTD, 83 ITR 377 (SC). Regarding the object clause in the memorandum, of association the Supreme Court observed "The objects of the assessee-company are manifold. The object of carrying on the business of "dealing in or holding of investments" is only one of them. Hence, the memorandum of association does not assist us in deciding whether the business of the asses…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. Petrotech, New Delhi

ITA 6259/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

For Appellant: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11hSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…falling in the last limb of the definition of „charitable purpose‟ if they carry on commercial activities in the nature of business, trade or commerce. Construing the expression „business‟, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributers Baroda P. Ltd.(83 ITR 377) has held that „business‟ refers to real, substantial, organized course of activity for earning profits as „profit motive‟ is essential requisite for conducting business. Following the above decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of BJP vs. DCIT: 258 ITR 1 (Del.) (AT), has held that an activity to be treated as „business‟ should…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…text, your Honour’s kind attention is invited to the various legal precedents wherein the definition of business, trade and commerce has been explained. Construing the expression ‘business’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributers Baroda P. Ltd.(83 ITR 377) has held that ‘business’ refers to real, substantial, organized course of activity for earning profits as ‘profit motive’ is essential requisite for conducting business. Following the above decision, the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of BJP vs. DCIT : 258 ITR 1 (Del.) (AT), has held that an activity to be treated as ‘business’ should…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be doubted and interfered with. & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 5.7.2. The ld AR distinguished the following cases relied upon by the ld AO in his assessment order :- CIT vs Distributors Baroda Pvt Ltd reported in 83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The l…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be doubted and interfered with. & CO Nos. 153 & 154/Kol/2010 Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 5.7.2. The ld AR distinguished the following cases relied upon by the ld AO in his assessment order :- CIT vs Distributors Baroda Pvt Ltd reported in 83 ITR 377 (SC) CIT vs Amalgamations Pvt Ltd reported in 108 ITR 885 (Mad) CIT vs K.S.Venkatasubbaiah Reddiar reported in 221 ITR 18 (Mad) G.Venkataswami Naidu and Co. vs CIT reported in 35 ITR 594 (SC) CIT vs Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd reported in 100 ITR 706 (SC) Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 68 ITR 486 (SC) 5.7.3. The l…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…business is exempt under section 10(33) of the Act and, therefore, expenditure related to such income cannot be allowed under section 14A of the Act.” (iii) Hon’ble ITAT considered Hon’ble Apex Court Judgements in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITR 377 and Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd., NarainSwadeshi Weaving Mills 26 ITR 765 and Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd 226 ITR 188 at para 19 and 20 held that “19. In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that where a specific head is provided in respect of a particular income, then such income must be computed under that very head irrespective of…

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital (83 ITR 377) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax