S.B. Billimoria & Co. v. ACIT

125 ITD 122Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#7226 most cited

What is S.B. Billimoria & Co. v. ACIT authority for?

Payments to retired partners that are quantified and identified in the partnership deed, and treated as a prior charge on the firm's income and assets, are considered an application of income, not a deductible business expense.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.B. Billimoria & Co. v. ACIT · partnership deed · retired partners · application of income · prior charge on income · payment to retired partners · quantification of payment · identification of payment · partnership assets

Sections most often in play

Section 234CSection 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 195(1)Section 234BSection 234DSection 40(a)(i)Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 195(1)interest under section 234cright to receivelegal representativesection 234dforeign tax creditcredit for tdssection 244asection 234csection 9(1)(vii)section 40(a)(i)application of income

Judgments citing S.B. Billimoria & Co. v. ACIT

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…ce it is made from the income of the firın. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. In the course of arguments, she placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. Mumbai in the case of S.B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010]125 ITD 122(Mum) to buttress her contention. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and given our thoughtful considerations on the submissions made before us. We have also perused the judicial precedents referred before us by both the parties and also the partnership deed and its relevant clauses. From the various clauses of the partnership deed, we note tha…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 350/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…ce it is made from the income of the firın. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. In the course of arguments, she placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. Mumbai in the case of S.B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010]125 ITD 122(Mum) to buttress her contention. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and given our thoughtful considerations on the submissions made before us. We have also perused the judicial precedents referred before us by both the parties and also the partnership deed and its relevant clauses. From the various clauses of the partnership deed, we note tha…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…ce it is made from the income of the firın. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. In the course of arguments, she placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. Mumbai in the case of S.B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010]125 ITD 122(Mum) to buttress her contention. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and given our thoughtful considerations on the submissions made before us. We have also perused the judicial precedents referred before us by both the parties and also the partnership deed and its relevant clauses. From the various clauses of the partnership deed, we note tha…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. National E Assessment Centre, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4312/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry and Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…nce it is made from the income of the firm. Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. In the course of arguments, she placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of S.B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010]125 ITD 122(Mum) to buttress her contention. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and given our thoughtful considerations on the submissions made before us. We have also perused the judicial precedents referred before us by both the parties and also the partnership deed and its relevant clauses. From the various clauses of the partnership deed, we note tha…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2423/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA No.2421/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2010-11) & M/s. Uni Design Jewellery Vs. The Deputy Commissioner India Pvt.Ltd. of Income Tax, Plot No.3, Uni Design House Central Circle-1(2) Mumbai, 904, 9th Floor CEPZ WICEL,Opp. SEEPZ Main Gate, Andheri(E) Old CGO Bldg. Mumbai – 400 093 MK Road, Mumbai-400020 PAN/GIR No.AAACU3940J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Karan Lala Revenue by Shri Sushilkumar Poddar Date of Hearing 25/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The…

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…06-07 and the department appeal before the ITAT. In support of this contentions, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ACIT Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (2005) 94 TTJ 736 (Mumbai), S.B. Billimoria & CO Vs. ACIT (2010) 125 ITD 122 (Mum), Raj Enterprises Vs. ITO (1995) 51 TTJ (Jp.) 408& M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 162 TTJ 137 (Jaipur Trib.). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.we have heard the argument advanced by the Ld Representative of the parties and perused the rec…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 812/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.852/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Entertainment Network Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Mumbai- 400020 Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaace7796G आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 16(1), Room No. 439, Entertainment Network 4T H Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Ltd., M.K Road, Mumbai 400020 4T H Floor, A Wing, V. Matulya Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaace7796G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy &
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…06-07 and the department appeal before the ITAT. In support of this contentions, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ACIT Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. (2005) 94 TTJ 736 (Mumbai), S.B. Billimoria & CO Vs. ACIT (2010) 125 ITD 122 (Mum), Raj Enterprises Vs. ITO (1995) 51 TTJ (Jp.) 408& M/s. Gillette India Limited Vs. ACIT (2014) 162 TTJ 137 (Jaipur Trib.). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Revenue has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question.we have heard the argument advanced by the Ld Representative of the parties and perused the rec…

Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caore, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 249/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…atio laid by the Hon’ble Bombay High in assessee’s own case still holds good and the issue is squarely covered by the said decision. 11. On the other hand ld. DR relied on the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of S. B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010] 125 ITD 122 (Mum.), to say that payment made by the assessee was gratuitous in nature and therefore not allowable. The ld. DR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. V. G. Bhuta reported in 203 ITR 249 (Bom). 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and considered the material placed before us. The li…

Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caore, Mumbai vs. JCIT 11(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 5217/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

…atio laid by the Hon’ble Bombay High in assessee’s own case still holds good and the issue is squarely covered by the said decision. 11. On the other hand ld. DR relied on the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of S. B. Billimoria & Co. Vs. ACIT [2010] 125 ITD 122 (Mum.), to say that payment made by the assessee was gratuitous in nature and therefore not allowable. The ld. DR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. V. G. Bhuta reported in 203 ITR 249 (Bom). 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and considered the material placed before us. The li…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. K.S. Aiyar & Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011 is dismissed

ITA 208/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asst. Cit 16(2), M/S K.S. Aiyar & Co., Room No. 440, 4Th Floor, F-7, Laxmi Mills, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Shakti Mills Lane, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Off Dr. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Aaafk6843P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Rajora (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Rajora (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143Section 195(1)Section 37Section 40

…ature of an obligation voluntarily agreed to and such an obligation cannot be ‘diversion by an overriding charge’, as claimed by the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of the ITAT, ‘F’ Bench, Mumbai S.B. Billimoria & Co. Vs ACIT-11(3), Mumbai [2010] 125 ITD 122 [Mum]. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of payments out of profits of the firm to ex-partner of Rs. 38,92,725/- without appreciating the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs Sitaldas Tirathdas [1991] 41 ITR and Moti Lal Chhadm…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1517/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1517/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Non-Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Chennai -Vs- M/S Deloitte Haskins & Sells [Pan: Aacfd 3771 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 111/Chny/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1517/Chny/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Deloitte Haskins & Sells -Vs- Acit, Non-Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Chennai [Pan: Aacfd 3771 D] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

…l facts, it was held that the payment is by overriding title but not an application of income. The ld DR argued that this decision has been distinguished by yet another decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of S.B.Billimoria & Co. vs ACIT reported in (2010) 125 ITD 122 (Mum) dated 19.12.2008. Accordingly he pleaded that the latest decision of Mumbai Tribunal dated 19.12.2008 would hold the field as on date and prayed for restoration of the order of the ld AO in this regard. 4 CO No. 111/CHNY/2017 M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells A.Yr. 2012-13 5. In response to this, the ld AR submitted that the decision of Mumbai…

Minaxi Kishore Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7871/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Minaxi Kishore Mehta, Ito Ward 21(1), B-21, 3Rd Floor, Paritosh Kapole Bandra, Mumbai. Society, Vile Parle, West, Vs. Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aajpm2912L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Firoz B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri U.B.Jakke (DR)
Section 2(47)Section 48Section 56

…covering the said advance of Rs 75 lacs from her mother against the sale consideration of 7 Crores, it is the appellant who has created the charge on sale consideration by her own volition and not due to any overriding title. In case of S. B. Billimoria & Co. 125 ITD 122 (Mum.) the ITAT held that self-imposed obligations being gratuitous were application of income and not a diversion at source of income, hence, not allowable as deduction. In effect, the essence of the transaction would have remained the same if the mother refunded Rs 75 lacs to developer and then the developer paid Rs 7 Crores to appellant or whe…

S.B. Billimoria & Co. v. ACIT (125 ITD 122) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax