Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT

215 ITR 582High Court1995#2389 most cited

What is Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Interest on borrowed capital used for purposes not directly related to the assessee's immediate business, such as providing interest-free advances or investing in a subsidiary's shares, is not deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) due to a restrictive interpretation of "for the purposes of business."

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT · 215 ITR 582 · Section 36(1)(iii) · interest on borrowed capital · disallowance of interest · commercial expediency · interest free advances · investment in subsidiary · for purposes of business · limited interpretation · overruled decision

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 1961Section 68Section 143(3)Section 194(I)(b)Section 24Section 37Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)(2)(b)section 36(1)(ii)interest free advancessection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencycolourable devicebusiness connectionsection 36(1)section 36disallowance of interest expenditureput to useunabsorbed depreciation

Judgments citing Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT

MANGLAYATAN PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly

ITA 5527/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-04, A-86, Gali No. 9, New Delhi Chander Vihar, Mandawali, New Delhi (Pan: Aaicm3804H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prateek Mittal, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…hich gave a limited interpretations to the scope of the phrase "for the purposes of business or profession" used in section 36(1)(iii). This decision overruled the Bombay High Court decisions in the case of Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. reported in 208 ITR 989 and 215 ITR 582, and approved the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377. Subsequent to this decision of the Apex Court, the Dept. filed an SLP against the Delhi High Court's decision in Addl. CIT vs Tulips Star Hotels Ltd. reported in 338 ITR 482 wherein the High Court had held that the interest liability on loans bor…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI vs. T BHIMJYANI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeea.Y : 2018-19 :

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

…commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

ITA 913/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 894/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kamat Hotels (India) Limited KHIL House, 70 C Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 099 Maharashtra [PAN: AAACK2912L] …………. Appellant Vs Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtra …………. Respondent Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtr…

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

ITA 894/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 894/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kamat Hotels (India) Limited KHIL House, 70 C Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 099 Maharashtra [PAN: AAACK2912L] …………. Appellant Vs Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtra …………. Respondent Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1483/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 894/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kamat Hotels (India) Limited KHIL House, 70 C Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 099 Maharashtra [PAN: AAACK2912L] …………. Appellant Vs Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtra …………. Respondent Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.651, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020, Maharashtr…

ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2349/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. 30. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (Bom) 344 : (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom) TR (Bom) 344 : (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom) also does not appear to also does not appear to be correct. 31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) (Bharat) Ltd. (2…

ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VKT VENTURES LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Reven

ITA 2322/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 09/07/2024
Section 36(1)(iii)

…which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. 30. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (Bom) 344 : (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom) TR (Bom) 344 : (1995) 215 ITR 582 (Bom) also does not appear to also does not appear to be correct. 31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Del) 188 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del) (Bharat) Ltd. (2…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…f commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in ITO VS. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…f commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in ITO VS. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

ANNAVARAM KOSURI -DCIT-19(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA RAMESHCHANDRA CHATURVEDI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2889/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra 19(3), Mumbai. Chaturvedi Premises No. 1, 2, 4Th Floor, (Appellant) Shreepati Arcade, Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 036. Pan:Aczpc5041Q (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya &
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…advances given are to the extent of Rs.101,90,48,922/-. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs CWT, 208 ITR 989 (Bom.) and Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs CIT, 215 ITR 582 (Bom) are misplaced as the said decisions have been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner of 6 Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi Income Tax (Appeals), 288 ITR 1 (SC). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 12. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances…

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR, SAGASR

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

ITA 128/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

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

ITA 127/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

ITA 263/JAB/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 37(1)Section 40

…commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiab…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.93 & 94/Jab/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEARs- 2016-17 &2017-18) ACIT, vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd., Circle-Katni. Seth Prahladbhai Patel Marg, Patharia Pathak, Damoh-470661. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACJ7141G Assessee By Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of hearing 21/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate order,…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. J.P. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, DAMOH

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/JAB/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.93 & 94/Jab/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEARs- 2016-17 &2017-18) ACIT, vs J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd., Circle-Katni. Seth Prahladbhai Patel Marg, Patharia Pathak, Damoh-470661. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACJ7141G Assessee By Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of hearing 21/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R PER OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate order,…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…commercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifia…

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 23/VNS/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…mercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. 32. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. 33. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the asses…

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 22/VNS/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi13 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 234ASection 36

…mercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. 32. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. 33. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the asses…

JURASIC REFINERS & JEWELS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY JURASSIC FINANCE & CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.),DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)Section 73

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jurasic Refiners & Jewels Pvt.Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, [Formerly Jurassic Finance & Special Range-5, Consultants Pvt.Ltd.], 11157/1124, New Delhi. 3rd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110028. PAN-AAACJ0754B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 27.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment ye…

KOTHARI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, COMPANY RANGE II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 204/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ercial expediency is the correct view, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court which set aside the aforesaid decision is not correct. 30. Similarly, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (1995) 215 ITR 582 also does not appear to be correct. 31. We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 172 CTR (Del) 188 : (2002) 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itse…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3