SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd.

103 ITR 66Supreme Court of India1976#1030 most cited

What is SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd. authority for?

The Income Tax Department cannot sit in the armchair of a businessman or question their commercial wisdom and business decisions. Expenses incurred for business expediency, determined from the businessman's point of view, are allowable business expenses.

105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

SA Builders · Panipat Woollen Mills · commercial expediency · business expenditure · allowable expenses · revenue cannot question commercial wisdom · Income Tax Department armchair businessman · genuine business expenses · Section 37(1) income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 1962Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 133(6)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

nav methoddcf methodstrategic investmentsection 56(2)(viib)valuation of sharescommercial rightscommercial expediencysection 251(1)section 56(2)(vii)date of transferintangible assetssection 56(2)

Judgments citing SA Builders, 288 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd.

M/S at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5535/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…tax authorities, is entitled to question the commercial reasoning/justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (SC) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, we find that…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…ax authorities, is entitled to question the commercial reasoning/justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 1TR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 1) (Cal High Court) v. CIT Vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents,…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6703/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 145(2)Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ax authorities, is entitled to question the commercial reasoning/ justification of the expenditure so incurred. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents furnished by the assessee: i. CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) ii. CIT v. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd [1995) 214 ITR 1 iii. Binodiram Balchand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (48 ITR 548) iv. Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co Ltd vs. CIT (65 ITR 10 (Cal High Court) v. CIT vs B Dalmia Cement Ltd (254 ITR 377) 76. Respectfully following the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR
Section 153(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2008-09 AT&T Communication Services ACIT, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3rd Floor, New Delhi. vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (PAN: AACCA8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment year: 2008-09 ACIT, AT&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, vs DC.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (PAN: AACCA8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms…

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1015/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR
Section 153(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2008-09 AT&T Communication Services ACIT, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3rd Floor, New Delhi. vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (PAN: AACCA8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment year: 2008-09 ACIT, AT&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, vs DC.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (PAN: AACCA8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms…

M/S. Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 126/ASR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 4G

…terprises Pvt. Ltd. • Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v M/s Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay 65 ITR 381 (1967) (SC) (discussed above) • CIT v Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasirgirji 91 ITR 544 (1973) (SC) (discussed above) • CIT v Panipat Woolen and General Mills 103 ITR 66 (1976)(SC) (discussed above) • In the case of Hive Communication (P.) Ltd. v CIT 201 Taxman 99 (2011), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: "The legitimate business needs of the company must be judged from the viewpoint of the company itself and must be viewed from the point of view of a prudent businessman. It is not for the AO to dictat…

M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 354/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.354/Asr./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No.126/Asr./2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Mbd House, Railway Road, Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb9469K Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 08.05.2014 & 15.01.2015 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common & The Appeals Were Heard Together, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Pawan K. Kumar, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)(b)Section 4G

…terprises Pvt. Ltd. • Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v M/s Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay 65 ITR 381 (1967) (SC) (discussed above) • CIT v Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasirgirji 91 ITR 544 (1973) (SC) (discussed above) • CIT v Panipat Woolen and General Mills 103 ITR 66 (1976)(SC) (discussed above) • In the case of Hive Communication (P.) Ltd. v CIT 201 Taxman 99 (2011), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: "The legitimate business needs of the company must be judged from the viewpoint of the company itself and must be viewed from the point of view of a prudent businessman. It is not for the AO to dictat…

The DCIT, -1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

ITA 89/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f the businessman and not of the IT Department. Reliance is placed of following judgments:- i. S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) ii. C.I.T. vs Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. 881TR1 (SC) iii. C.I.T. vs PanipatWoollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 (SC) 15. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the findings of CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and records placed before us. Assessee claimed machine hire charges at Rs.1,76,20,000/-. Ld.A.O only allowed this expenditure to the extent of 25% and this disallowance was maintained to 3…

M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur vs. The ACIT Circle 1(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and

ITA 1/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f the businessman and not of the IT Department. Reliance is placed of following judgments:- i. S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT(A) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) ii. C.I.T. vs Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. 881TR1 (SC) iii. C.I.T. vs PanipatWoollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 (SC) 15. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the findings of CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival contentions and records placed before us. Assessee claimed machine hire charges at Rs.1,76,20,000/-. Ld.A.O only allowed this expenditure to the extent of 25% and this disallowance was maintained to 3…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 36/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…t of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output service tax liability (against which the input service tax credit would have…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation) Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1885/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 36 & 1885/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 43D

…t of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output service tax liability (against which the input service tax credit would have…

The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It) - 2(1), Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

…ctive standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) 15 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output service tax liability (against which the input service tax credit would have…

DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Kolkata

Accordingly, the Ground Nos. (iv) to (vi) raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 503/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 503/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 505/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Royal Bank Of Scotland N.V. -Vs- Dcit (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 6818 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. N. Bajoria, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43D

…ctive standard of reasonableness of the revenue. • The assessee has relied on the following case laws: • S.A Builders Limited vs. CIT(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) 15 M/s Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. A.Yr. 2011-12 •CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.[1976] 103 ITR 66(SC) • CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co(1960) 38 ITR 601 Thus, it is submitted that the write off of excess CENVAT credit need not always be on account of closure of the business but the write off could also trigger inter alia on account of expected reduction in the output service tax liability (against which the input service tax credit would have…

Rajasayee Fine Linen Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for

ITA 1034/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 37

…enses are to be allowed in full u/s 37 and relied on the decisions of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, CIT vs Birla Cotton Spg & Wvg Mills Ltd / CIT vs Birla Bros P Ltd (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC) , CIT vs Panipatwoollwn & General Mills Co Ltd (1976) 103 ITR 66 (SC), CIT vs Sales Magnesite P Ltd (1995) 81 Taxman 334 (Born.), Industrial Feeders vs ACIT, (2016) 68 taxmann.com 92 (Madras), DCIT vs Alliance Retreat P Ltd (2015) 61 taxmann.com 249 (Chennai - Tribunal) etc. 3.1 Regarding the high percentage of consumption of raw materials to production value, the AR invited our attention to the copies of…

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)

…o facilitate the carrying on of the business may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (13 ITR 756 SC); CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P Ltd. 214 ITR 1; CIT vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 SC; CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63 (Mad); Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC; Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. 10 Taxmann.com 18. It was contended that expediency of the expenditure is not for the Revenue to consider and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Amarjothi Pictures vs. CIT 69 ITR 755, and CIT vs.…

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)

…o facilitate the carrying on of the business may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (13 ITR 756 SC); CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P Ltd. 214 ITR 1; CIT vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 SC; CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63 (Mad); Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC; Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. 10 Taxmann.com 18. It was contended that expediency of the expenditure is not for the Revenue to consider and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Amarjothi Pictures vs. CIT 69 ITR 755, and CIT vs.…

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)

…o facilitate the carrying on of the business may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (13 ITR 756 SC); CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P Ltd. 214 ITR 1; CIT vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 SC; CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63 (Mad); Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC; Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. 10 Taxmann.com 18. It was contended that expediency of the expenditure is not for the Revenue to consider and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Amarjothi Pictures vs. CIT 69 ITR 755, and CIT vs.…

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)

…o facilitate the carrying on of the business may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. (13 ITR 756 SC); CIT vs. Sales Magnesite P Ltd. 214 ITR 1; CIT vs. Panipat Woolen & General Mills Co. Ltd. 103 ITR 66 SC; CIT vs. Associated Electrical Agencies 266 ITR 63 (Mad); Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. 224 CTR 32 SC; Adidas India Marketing P Ltd. 10 Taxmann.com 18. It was contended that expediency of the expenditure is not for the Revenue to consider and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Amarjothi Pictures vs. CIT 69 ITR 755, and CIT vs.…

Lastra Niraj P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3411/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar- DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…assessment and appellate proceedings,that the above expenditure was incurred as per prudent business decision and on the ground of commercial expediency.He relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. (103 ITR 66). The Departmental Representative(DR)contended that there was no justification for making payments to the sister concern,that the assessee was doing the same job,that expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes,that purpose of expenditure was in doubt. 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materi…

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

…e authorities do not have the power to disallow expenses on the ground of reasonableness of expenditure or benefit arising there from. 5.17 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: -CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co Ltd (103 ITR 66) (Supreme Court) "That in order to determine the question of reasonableness of the expenditure, the test of commercial expediency would 87 | P a g e AT & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt Ltd V DCIT ITA No 2538/Del/2014 (A) & ITA NO 2518/Del/2014 (D) A Y 2009-10 have to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the inco…