Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

31 ITR 28Supreme Court of India1957#745 most cited

What is Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.

137

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,382 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v CIT · 31 ITR 28 · Section 37 · commercial expediency · revenue expenditure · wholly and exclusively for business · Section 66 · question of law · question of fact · Tribunal findings · perversity

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 37Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 12AASection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 119(1)section 66section 80g(5)(iii)section 10(23c)section 260commercial expediencysection 80g(5)section 119registration under section 12asection 80grevenue expenditure

Judgments citing Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S. Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 $~5 to 8 &16 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.01.2015 Pronounced on: 30.01.2015 + ITA 614/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 619/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 661/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 710/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ....…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. M/S Yum Restaurants (I) Pvt. Ltd

ITA-614/2014HC Delhi30 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 37

…ITA 614/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 $~5 to 8 &16 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 07.01.2015 Pronounced on: 30.01.2015 + ITA 614/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 619/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 661/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 710/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant versus M/S. YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT. LTD. ....…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Discovery Communication India

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/1297/2010HC Delhi24 Nov 2014
Section 260A

…2014:DHC:6362-DB ITA 1297/2010, 1101/2011 & 489/2013 Page 11 of 18 same should be for the purpose of business and not for the purpose of earning income. (see Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 207 (SC) and CIT vs. Birla Spinning and Weavings Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC). In CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140 (SC), it has been observed : “The expression "for the purpose of the business" is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Its range is wide : it may take in not only the day to d…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA-754/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 260ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 1 of 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20th September, 2012 % Date of Decision: 21st December, 2012 + ITA 754/2010 & C.M. APPL. No.15650/2012 + ITA 773/2010 + ITA 775/2010 + ITA 1092/2010 + ITA 1101/2010 + ITA 1103/2010 + ITA 1104/2010 + ITA 1112/2010 + ITA 1124/2010 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing…

Director of Income Tax vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA - 754 / 2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 260ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 1 of 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20th September, 2012 % Date of Decision: 21st December, 2012 + ITA 754/2010 & C.M. APPL. No.15650/2012 + ITA 773/2010 + ITA 775/2010 + ITA 1092/2010 + ITA 1101/2010 + ITA 1103/2010 + ITA 1104/2010 + ITA 1112/2010 + ITA 1124/2010 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission

ITA/754/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2012
Section 12ASection 260ASection 263Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 1 of 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20th September, 2012 % Date of Decision: 21st December, 2012 + ITA 754/2010 & C.M. APPL. No.15650/2012 + ITA 773/2010 + ITA 775/2010 + ITA 1092/2010 + ITA 1101/2010 + ITA 1103/2010 + ITA 1104/2010 + ITA 1112/2010 + ITA 1124/2010 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pearl Intercontinental Ltd

ITA/575/2007HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 271Section 80H

…evidence or material- The frndings of the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and they caunot be subjected to the criticism ofbeing unreasonable or perverse or irrational. It has been lretd by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi MiUs Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 as follows: ".....1t has been held on the corresponding provisions in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact is open to aitack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final even…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M.S. International Ltd

ITA/1394/2009HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 271Section 80H

…evidence or material. The findings of the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and they cannot be subjected to the criticism ofbeing unreasonable or perverse or irrational. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 as foilows: - ,,.....1t has been held on the corresponding provisions in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact ts open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to ionsider, the decision of the Tribunal is final ev…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Shoes East Ltd

ITA/210/2007HC Delhi28 Sept 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…vidence or material. The findings of the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and they cannot be subjected to the criticism of being unreasonable or perverse or irrational. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 as follows: - ".....1t has been held on the corresponding provisiorts in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact ts open to attaclc as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final e…

CIT vs. M/S. M.S. International Ltd

ITA-999/2006HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…ce or material. The findings of the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and they cannot be subjected to the criticism of being unreasonable or perverse or irrational. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 as follows: - “…..It has been held on the corresponding provisions in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. M.S. International Ltd

ITA/999/2006HC Delhi28 Sept 2012
Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80H

…ce or material. The findings of the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and they cannot be subjected to the criticism of being unreasonable or perverse or irrational. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 as follows: - “…..It has been held on the corresponding provisions in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Sunaero Ltd

ITA - 562 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…ot a 100% subsidiary of Sunair Hotels Ltd. This aspect will be examined by the tribunal. We refrain from deciding this aspect/question. Order of the tribunal we record is silent on this question. 31. In Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited versus CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC), the Supreme Court had propounded the following principles: “25. We have discussed the authorities at great length, as some of the observations contained therein appear, at first sight, to render plausible the contention of the appellant, and it seems desirable that the true meaning of those observations should be clarified, lest error…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/562/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…ot a 100% subsidiary of Sunair Hotels Ltd. This aspect will be examined by the tribunal. We refrain from deciding this aspect/question. Order of the tribunal we record is silent on this question. 31. In Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited versus CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC), the Supreme Court had propounded the following principles: “25. We have discussed the authorities at great length, as some of the observations contained therein appear, at first sight, to render plausible the contention of the appellant, and it seems desirable that the true meaning of those observations should be clarified, lest error…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi (Central)¿¿¿II vs. Manoj Aggarwal

ITA-904/2009HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 158BSection 260A

…enced the mind of the tribunal and, therefore, the question of law arises. Reliance is placed upon Sree Meenakshi Mills 2011:DHC:5110-DB ITA 904-905/2009 & 575/2009 Page 24 of 26 Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC) and CIT Vs. Daultram (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC). 30. Having considered the various contentions of the Revenue we would not at this stage state or give a firm opinion or finding on merits, but we do feel that substantial questions of law arise in the present case. Accordingly, the following substantial questions of law are framed:- (i)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manoj Aggarwal

ITA - 904 / 2009HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 158BSection 260A

…enced the mind of the tribunal and, therefore, the question of law arises. Reliance is placed upon Sree Meenakshi Mills 2011:DHC:5110-DB ITA 904-905/2009 & 575/2009 Page 24 of 26 Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 28 (SC) and CIT Vs. Daultram (1964) 53 ITR 574 (SC). 30. Having considered the various contentions of the Revenue we would not at this stage state or give a firm opinion or finding on merits, but we do feel that substantial questions of law arise in the present case. Accordingly, the following substantial questions of law are framed:- (i)…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

M/S Bhagat Const. Co.P.Ltd vs. CIT & Ors

ITA/85/1999HC Delhi16 Nov 2000

…ither an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court o.r by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. In Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd v. C.I.T., (1957) 31 ITR 28,_40 (SQ, the Apex Court has held where the determination of an issue depends upon .the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any princlple of law, the issue raises a mer'e question of fact. 6. Basically, follorving are the tests to determine whether the qubstion involved is one of fa…