R 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.

108 ITR 895High Court1977#9511 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 234BSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)section 71section 80mlegal expensesamalgamationprofits and gains of business or professionsection 36(1)(iii)section 37(1)section 144csection 14aincome from other sourcessection 37

Judgments citing R 368 (SC); CIT Vs. Upasana Hospital, (1997) 225 ITR 845 (Ker); CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.

LIFESTYLE AND MEDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 18(1), NEW DELHI, 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

…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’s instant first and foremost substantive ground to delet…

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

…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’s instant first and foremost substantive ground to delet…

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

…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’s instant first and foremost substantive ground to delet…

METSO OYJ,FINLAND vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

…ofit motive and therefore, the guarantee fee earned by the Appellant is in the nature of its business income 26. Reliance in this regard is place on the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax 108 ITR 895 [affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Amalgamation (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 132 (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court referred its earlier decision in Amalgamations (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 380 (Mad), wherein it was held that furnishing guarantees for loans obtained by subsidiary companies formed part of t…

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)

…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’s instant first and foremost substantive ground to delet…

JE ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

…wherein it has been held that corporate guarantee once invoked can be claimed as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, reliance can be placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the matter of CIT vs Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. (108 ITR 895) and later affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that any Loss arising from guarantee liability was allowable as a business loss. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that in this case the assessee company has provided the Corporate Guarantee (CG) for the two loan arrangements between its AEs of USD 50 Millions and…

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 217/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 80G

…ssessee earned various streams of income out of these investments, one of which was assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. M/s. Tata Industries Ltd c) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Amalgamations P Ltd reported in 108 ITR 895 (Mad) affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 92 Taxman 132 (SC). In this case it was held – The question before us is whether the principle, which is applicable to the managing agency companies, can be applied to a company, which is carrying on the business of holding investments. As we have already seen, the decisions of the Supreme Court required…

REFEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2939/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…d 21-08-2009), wherein it was held that assessee had guaranteed the loan in its carrying on of business and the loss was admissible deduction. For the same, the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs Amalgamations P. Ltd (108 ITR 895) which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 226 ITR 188. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) was also applicable wherein it was held that expenditure incurred on commercial expediency in trying to retrieve its investments in subsidiary would be allowable deduction. 4.2 Regarding dep…

REFEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2938/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) – Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar, Ld. CIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

…d 21-08-2009), wherein it was held that assessee had guaranteed the loan in its carrying on of business and the loss was admissible deduction. For the same, the Tribunal had followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs Amalgamations P. Ltd (108 ITR 895) which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 226 ITR 188. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (288 ITR 1) was also applicable wherein it was held that expenditure incurred on commercial expediency in trying to retrieve its investments in subsidiary would be allowable deduction. 4.2 Regarding dep…

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED,BURLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ous on the presumption that ITAT may take a different view. i. That in the show cause notice the Pr. CIT has referred to the following decisions: i. Kwality Restaurant & Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. CIT(2002) 253 ITR 689 (DEL) ii. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Pvt. Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 That both the above decisions were pronounced in the matter of companies in the private sector; they are not public sector undertakings. These decisions are not applicable to the fact & circumstances of the case; in this regard it will be pertinent to take note of the following judicial pronouncements: • Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala i…

M/S. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPOR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1181/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1181/Chny/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial Vs The Acit, Development Corporation Limited, Company Circle – Iii(1), 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Chennai – 34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact3409P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT
Section 11Section 115JSection 263

…as a credit institution falling within the definition of ‘financial company’ U/s.2(5B) of Interest Tax Act. The Ld.AR also placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amalgamations (P) Ltd., reported in 108 ITR 895 wherein it was held as under:- “The question before us is whether the principle, which is applicable to the managing agency companies, can be applied to a company, which is carrying on the business of holding investments. As we have already seen, the decisions of the Supreme Court required a nexus between the business of the assessee and the expe…