Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT

280 ITR 519High Court2006#7099 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Issues it is cited on

section 56(1)cost plus methodagency pemanagement feessection 253(3)benchmarking analysiswithholding taxtransactional net margin methodarms length pricebusiness connectionsection 40(a)(i)commercial expediency

Judgments citing Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

…ut since it is an obligation incurred during the year, it could be treated as relating to year in which it is incurred and allowed as a deduction of that year for income tax purposes notwithstanding the accounting treatment. + Ray; Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [280 ITR 519 (Cal)] * EMPORIUM — ITAT BOMBAY 'p: THIRD MEMBER BENCH —50 TTJ (BOM)(THIRD MEMBER) 258 Business expenditure — Sales promotion expenses ~ Commissioner paid on the spot to various persons for bringing customers — Payments unverifiable — Customers who visit assessee’s shop are tourists and thus some incentive is necessary for guides to bring tourist…

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present int…

AHLSTROM FIBER COMPOSITES (I) P. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present int…

AHLSTROM FIBERCOMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,MUNDRA (KUTCH) vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalit(Tp)A No.85& 287/Rjt/2017 Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ions: i) Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd., (1925) 10 TC 155; ii) Eastern Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Microsoft Corporation of India P.Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 410 (Delhi); iv) Ravi Marketing P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal); v) Sassoon J. David & Co. P.Ltd. Vs. CIT (1979) 1 taxman 485 (SC); vi) Jamna Auto industries Vs. CIT, (2008) 167 TAXMAN 192 (P&H HC) Finally, he contended that the TPO had categorically held that no adverse inference was to be drawn with regard to other international transactions entered into by the assessee which included the present int…

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

…v. CIT (85 ITR (Delhi)] v. CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (254 ITR 377) CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (254 ITR 377) vi. CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills L CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (135 |TR 546) td. (135 |TR 546) vii. Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT 280 ITR 519) Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT 280 ITR 519) viii. CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) 9. Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and Assessee further submitted that…

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 253(3)Section 263

…v. CIT (85 ITR (Delhi)] v. CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (254 ITR 377) CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (254 ITR 377) vi. CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills L CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (135 |TR 546) td. (135 |TR 546) vii. Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT 280 ITR 519) Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT 280 ITR 519) viii. CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (53 ITR 140) 9. Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and Assessee further submitted that…

ACIT, CIR. 29, KOLKATA vs. SRI PRADIP MULLICK, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

ITA 621/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpl Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal(सम" "ी राजपाल यादव उपा"" एवं "ी िगरीश अ"वाल लेखा सद" Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pradip Mullick Income-Tax, Circle-29, 106/11, Hazra Road, Vs. Kolkata. Bhowanipur, Kolkata-700 026. (Pan: Afcpm4492B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-8, Kolkata Vide

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…nd allowed the claim of the assessee by deleting the addition so made. Before us, Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 wherein it was held that “whether an expenditure is expedient for the purpose of business is to be looked at by the income tax authorities or the Court from the view point of the 10 Shri Pradip Mullick, A.Y: 2012-13 assessee, not from it armchair. It is not for the Court or the Income Tax Authorities to suggest or advise to presume or surmise as…

ASHISH JINDAL ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 52(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4383/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Ashish Jindal, Vs Ito, 8, Sundar Nagar, Ward-52(4), Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aexpj2013H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th April, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal For Non-Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal Recalled Its Order Vide Ma No.205/Del/2020, Order Dated 11.06.2021. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…r the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement Pvt. Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 377, the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ravi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 280 ITR 519, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, 288 ITR 01. Further, the decision relied on by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra) has already been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the grounds raised by the as…

KISHAN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainkishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipm 6039 R

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Kishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACIPM 6039 R SA No. 01/Jodh/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 28/Jodh/2019) (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) Kishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ACIPM 6039 R Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari (CA) & Shri Abhinav Kothari (CA) Revenue By Shri K.C…

MSEB HOLDING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3999/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Mseb Holding Co. Ltd V. The Dy.Cit, Circle – 10(1) Hongkong Bank Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 72A(4)(b)

…iii) F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. v. CIT [36 ITR 114 (Bom.)] (iv) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [85 ITR (Delhi)] (v) CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. [254 ITR 377] (vi) CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. [135 ITR 546] (vii) Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT [280 ITR 519] (viii) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [53 ITR 140] 9. Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case and the law on the subject, the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year under consideration was allowable while computing its total income for the year a…

ACIT 1(2)2, MUMBAI vs. MSEEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3492/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Mseb Holding Co. Ltd V. The Dy.Cit, Circle – 10(1) Hongkong Bank Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 72A(4)(b)

…iii) F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. v. CIT [36 ITR 114 (Bom.)] (iv) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [85 ITR (Delhi)] (v) CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. [254 ITR 377] (vi) CIT v. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. [135 ITR 546] (vii) Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. v. CIT [280 ITR 519] (viii) CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [53 ITR 140] 9. Assessee further submitted that in view of the foregoing and considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case and the law on the subject, the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year under consideration was allowable while computing its total income for the year a…

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. NAMITA PATWA, DEWAS

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

ITA 410/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 68

…. It is only when the A.O. finds that claim so made is bogus or false or not incurred as a fact, it can be disallowed, else not.” 3.2.7 In the case of Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT on 18 January, 2005 equivalent citations : (2005) 198 CTR Cal 354, 2006 280 ITR 519 Cal. Hon'ble Court held that : “Whether an expenditure, expedient for the purpose of promotion of sales or the business and the amount and the manner in which to be expended is to be looked at by the authorities below under the IT Act or the Court from the viewpoint of the assessee not from its armchair the assessee knows his business. It is hi…

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. NAMITA PATWA, DEWAS

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross

ITA 297/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 68

…. It is only when the A.O. finds that claim so made is bogus or false or not incurred as a fact, it can be disallowed, else not.” 3.2.7 In the case of Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT on 18 January, 2005 equivalent citations : (2005) 198 CTR Cal 354, 2006 280 ITR 519 Cal. Hon'ble Court held that : “Whether an expenditure, expedient for the purpose of promotion of sales or the business and the amount and the manner in which to be expended is to be looked at by the authorities below under the IT Act or the Court from the viewpoint of the assessee not from its armchair the assessee knows his business. It is hi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASAS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4359/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…nce was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " DCIT, Central Circle-2 Vs A. K. Capital Services Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1143 & 1194/Del/2014 order dated 10.02.2016 (ITAT Del.) " Ravi Marketing (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519 (Cal.) " S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs CIT(A)(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR reiterated the observation made by the AO and strongly supported the assessment order dated 27.03.2015. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, i…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1194/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l, and therefore, is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following judgments:- - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court) - Calcutta High Court – Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519. - Apex Court decision in SA Builders vs. CIT {2006} 206 CTR (SC) 631; (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of above, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the same may be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the paper book, case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel o…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. A.K. SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1143/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l, and therefore, is not maintainable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following judgments:- - CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court) - Calcutta High Court – Ravi Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 519. - Apex Court decision in SA Builders vs. CIT {2006} 206 CTR (SC) 631; (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). In view of above, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the same may be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the paper book, case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel o…