Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

69 ITR 782High Court#9862 most cited

What is Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for preserving an asset by way of investment in a subsidiary for business or strategic consideration is an allowable business loss. Losses of any business carried on by the assessee are allowable.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · 69 ITR 782 · Section 28 · Section 37(1) · corporate guarantee · business loss · subsidiary · interest-free loan · business consideration · strategic consideration · preserving asset

Sections most often in play

Section 28Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…to subsidiaries is allowable business loss: • Essen (P) Ltd vs. CIT (65 (TR 625), Hon'ble SC. • CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd (133 (TR 756), Hon'ble SC • CIT vs. Khambhata Family Trust (34 Taxman.com 36) Gujarat HC, • J.R. Patel & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 782), Gujarat HC • CIT vs. Rao Construction (P) Ltd. (33 Taxman.com 61 3), Gujarat HC • CIT vs. Williamson Magor & Co Ltd. (117 (TR 858), Cal. 6.2.8 Thus argued that the assessee has advanced interest free loan to its subsidiary for business / strategic consideration and the expenditure was incurred for preserving the asset by way of investment in the…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

…) Sassoon J David and Co.P. Ltd. vs CIT 118 ITR 261 (SC). (vi) CIT vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC). (vii) SA Builders Limited vs CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). (viii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P. Ltd. 214 ITR 1(Bom). (ix) JR Patel & Sons P. Ltd. vs. CIT : 69 ITR 782 (Guj) . (x) CIT vs. Khambhatta Family Trust (215 Taxman 602) (Guj). (xi) Star India P. Ltd.: 103 ITD 73 (TM) (xii) National Panasonic (India) Ltd. vs. JCIT: ITA 3238/Del/2002 (Del) (xiii) Nestle India Ltd. vs. DCIT (Del)(2007) 111 ITR 498 (Del). (xiv) Sony India P. Ltd. vs. DCIT: 114 ITD 448. (xv) CIT vs Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd 195 Tax…

M/S Glaxosmithkline Asia Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 532/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…2006-07] • CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. 38 ITR 601 (SC) IPg. 230 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07) • SA Builders v. CIT: 288 ITR 1 (SC) [Pg. 236 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd.: 214 ITR 1 (Bom) • J.R. Patel & Sons (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 69 ITR 782 (Guj) • CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd: 195 Taxman 256 (Del) [Pg. 243 of PB-CL-2 for AY 2006-07] • CIT v. Agra Beverages Corporation (P) Ltd: 200 Taxman 43 (Del) • Star India (P) Ltd. : 103 ITD 73 (TM) • National Panasonic (India) Ltd. v. JCIT: ITA 3238/Del/2002 (Del) • Nestle India Ltd. v. DC1T (Del)(2007) 111 TTJ 498 (Del). (The Revenue's…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT v…

M/S Bengal Shriram Hitech City Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT v…

Bengal Shriram Hitech City Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 18 benefit to the assessee or there should be earning of income in order to allow the expenditure. The following a few cases are cited in this regard:  Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC)  J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj)  Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 !TR 508,516) (Guj)  Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All)  Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Born)  Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC)  J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC)  Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC)  Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del)  CIT v…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd, Rajam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 458/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…unal was right in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure in question was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee-company's business." 9.4 The court also referred the decision in the case of 3. R. Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 782 Guj.) wherein it was held that the correct approach would be to see whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency for the ultimate business of the assessee, whether that benefit is accrued immediately or after a lapse of time and whether directly or indirectly immaterial. The court observed: "(1) One has not got to take an abstr…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited, Rajam vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…unal was right in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure in question was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee-company's business." 9.4 The court also referred the decision in the case of 3. R. Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 782 Guj.) wherein it was held that the correct approach would be to see whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency for the ultimate business of the assessee, whether that benefit is accrued immediately or after a lapse of time and whether directly or indirectly immaterial. The court observed: "(1) One has not got to take an abstr…

Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Rajam vs. The ITO, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 349/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…unal was right in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure in question was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee-company's business." 9.4 The court also referred the decision in the case of 3. R. Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 782 Guj.) wherein it was held that the correct approach would be to see whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency for the ultimate business of the assessee, whether that benefit is accrued immediately or after a lapse of time and whether directly or indirectly immaterial. The court observed: "(1) One has not got to take an abstr…

The DCIT, Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 340/VIZ/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Srikakulam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Acit, Circle-4(1), Vs. M/S. Sri Varalakshmi Jute Visakhapatnam. Twine Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Rajam (Po), Srikakulam District. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bobbili Road, Visakhapatnam. Rajam (Po), Srikakulam Dist. Pan No. Aadcs 1167 L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar &For Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…unal was right in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure in question was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee-company's business." 9.4 The court also referred the decision in the case of 3. R. Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 782 Guj.) wherein it was held that the correct approach would be to see whether the payment was made on grounds of commercial expediency for the ultimate business of the assessee, whether that benefit is accrued immediately or after a lapse of time and whether directly or indirectly immaterial. The court observed: "(1) One has not got to take an abstr…

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

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

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

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ed immediately or not, the expenses 9 Globex Energia P. Ltd. incurred shall be allowable if these have been incurred for the purpose of business or for commercial expediency:- 1. Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (20 ITR 1) (SC) 2. J.R. Patel & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 69 ITR 782 (Guj) 3. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. (84 ITR 508,516) (Guj) 4. Security Printers of India Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 766,774) (All) 5. Tatasons Ltd. (18 ITR 460,467) (Bom) 6. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd.(65 ITR 381, 385) (SC) 7. J.K. Woolen Manufactures (72 ITR 612) (SC) 8. Aluminium Corp. of India Ltd. (86 ITR 11, 17) (SC) 9. Orissa Cement Ltd. (73 ITR 14, 17) (Del) I…

Patel & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (69 ITR 782) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax