Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT

223 ITR 101Supreme Court of India1997#1526 most cited

What is Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT authority for?

The classification of expenditure as capital or revenue is a factual determination, and an assessee's admission, especially when supported by evidence found during a search, can confirm the capital nature of an expense.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT · 223 ITR 101 · section 132 · section 153C · section 153A · revenue expenditure · capital expenditure · classification of expenditure · assessee admission · search assessment · deductibility of expenses · capitalization of expenses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 234BSection 234DSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)section 14(2)section 153cofsection 8dsection 33bsection 10(2)(xv)section 134section 198section 80ia(5)section 10(2)section 197asection 14a(1)

Judgments citing Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the L…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd reported in 261 ITR 501 and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Court in this issue: i. Shri Venkata Satyanarayan Rice Mills vs. CIT (223 ITR 101) (Supreme Court; ii. CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad); iii. CIT vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) (Guj); iv. CIT v. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. (243 ITR 284) ; v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (ITA Nos. 4923 & 6063/Mum/1989) (Mum); and vi. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999) (Mum). 31.7. the L…

Tata Teleservices Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2549/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2549/Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Tata Teleservices Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Jeevan Bharati Tower-1, Income Tax, Circle-25(1), 10Th Floor, Vs. C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, 24, Connaught Circus New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaact2438A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate & Sh. Shivam Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…elhi HC) CIT vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (1980) (132 ITR 377) (Guj) Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 1951 (20 ITR 1) (SC) S. A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (A) 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. CIT. [1997] 223 ITR 101 (SC) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC). Further the assessee has submitted that, "The assessee further submits that wherever the legislature intends to allow expenditure on deferred 2 Tata Teleservices Limited basis, it clearly provides so in the statue. Intention of the statue is to allow deductibility of expenditu…

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 622/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…td. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the documents were found during the search of M/s. Assetz Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and pertains and relates to assessee. AO has recorded satisfaction and he is the same AO for the searched person and other person. Therefore, there is no separ…

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 621/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…td. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the documents were found during the search of M/s. Assetz Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and pertains and relates to assessee. AO has recorded satisfaction and he is the same AO for the searched person and other person. Therefore, there is no separ…

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 620/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…td. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the documents were found during the search of M/s. Assetz Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and pertains and relates to assessee. AO has recorded satisfaction and he is the same AO for the searched person and other person. Therefore, there is no separ…

Ramamurthy Praveen Chandra, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

ITA 619/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Add. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…td. 110 ITR 251  Eastern Investments Ltd Vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 [SC];  CIT Vs. Chaandulal Keshavlal & Co., [1960] 38 ITR 601 [SC];  CIT Vs. Nainital Bank limited [1966] 62 ITR 638 [SC];  Sri Venkata Sathyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 [SC]; 12. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the documents were found during the search of M/s. Assetz Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and pertains and relates to assessee. AO has recorded satisfaction and he is the same AO for the searched person and other person. Therefore, there is no separ…

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, Kollam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 919/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. .......... Appellant Sankaramangalam, Chavara, Kollam 691583 [Pan: Aaact8118R] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 1, Kollam Appellant By: Shri Rajeev R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…fore us. The purpose of the expenditure was on the ground of commercial expediency. The ratio of the decision of 6 The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, wherein it is held as follows: - “The principles for determining whether the payment of the kind made by assessee could be regarded as a business expense are well-settled. What is to be seen is not whether it was compulsory for the assessee to make the payment or not but the correct test is t…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissioner of Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07 [ by Assessee] & ITA No. 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 A.Y.2007-08 [ By AO] & [By Assessee] Vs. State Bank of India The Additional 3rd Floor, Commissionerof Income tax Corporate Centre Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Madam Cama Road Room No 545, Aykar Bhavan Nariman Point Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulkadir Jawad Wala Revenue by Shri P C Chhhotaray Special Counsel Shri Dr Kishor Dhule…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM ITA No. 3868/MUM/2013 [ by Assessee] & ITA No . 4952/MUM /2013 [By AO ] Vs. ITA No 4128/MUM /2014 [ By AO] & ITA no 4105/MUM/2014 [By Assessee] A.Y .2006-07 A.Y .2007-08 State Bank of India 3 r d Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400021 The Add it ional Commissionerof Income tax Circle 2 (2) Mumbai Room No 545 , Aykar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAACS8577K Assessee by Shri Ketan Ved &Abdulka…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…TA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd 8. The approach, hence, needs to be that of a practical and prudent businessman rather than from the Revenue's strict classification of a right. As the Supreme Court held in the decision reported in [1997] 223 ITR 101 (Sri VenkataSatyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT), what is to be seen is not whether the payment was compulsory for the assessee to make or not. The correct test is that of commercial expediency. The apex court considering the various decisions held that any contribution made by the assessee to a fund which is directly connected or rela…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S. R.B.Seth Shreeram Narsingdas, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 36/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Nagpur. Narsingdas, Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacfr0227N Appellant Respondent C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.36/Nag/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. R.B. Seth Shreeram Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Narsingdas, 2(2), Nagpur. Flat No.C-2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440025. Pan : Aacr0227N Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Bandhia Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘The 2 C.O. No.05/Nag/2018 Cit(A)’] Dated 28.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BandhiaFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, as it was incurred for promoting the business by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayna Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs. CIT, 223 ITR 101 (SC). 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the expenditure incurred is hit by the Explanation 2 of section 37 of the Act. He further submits that 4 C.O. No.05/NAG/2018 the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the same as business expenditure without examining the business exp…

Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

ITA 412/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant D DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs ACIT’, and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in ‘CIT Vs Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.’ and of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Vs CIT’ reported in 223 ITR 101 (SC) and prayed for remanding the matter to Ld. AO with one more opportunity to prove its claims. ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 14 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil SSK Ltd., ITA No.411 & 412/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2012-13 8. Au contraire, the learned departmental representative Mr. Patel [for short ‚DR‛], objecting to the prayer of appellant to allow to a…

Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

ITA 411/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant D DhavleFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs ACIT’, and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in ‘CIT Vs Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.’ and of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Vs CIT’ reported in 223 ITR 101 (SC) and prayed for remanding the matter to Ld. AO with one more opportunity to prove its claims. ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 14 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil SSK Ltd., ITA No.411 & 412/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2012-13 8. Au contraire, the learned departmental representative Mr. Patel [for short ‚DR‛], objecting to the prayer of appellant to allow to a…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…23 to 28 of the compilation. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999 pages 29 to 32 of the compilation. The Id. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions in this regard. Shri Venkatastayanarayana Rice Mills Vs CIT (223 ITR 101) (SC)  CIT VS India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad)  CIT Vs Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) 33. The Id. D.R., on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, its was arbitrary and un-reasonable, hence, assessee being as government owned bank falling within definition as per Artic…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…23 to 28 of the compilation. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (ITA No. 336/Mum/1999 pages 29 to 32 of the compilation. The Id. Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial decisions in this regard. Shri Venkatastayanarayana Rice Mills Vs CIT (223 ITR 101) (SC)  CIT VS India Radiators Ltd. (236 ITR 719) (Mad)  CIT Vs Emtici Engineering Ltd. (242 ITR 86) 33. The Id. D.R., on the other hand, contended that this facility was restricted to only officers and not employees, hence, its was arbitrary and un-reasonable, hence, assessee being as government owned bank falling within definition as per Artic…

Mecon Limited, Ranchi vs. ACIT Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/RAN/2017[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 135Section 37(1)

…encies and society at large, thereby creating an atmosphere in which the business can succeed in a greater measure with the aid of such goodwill (CIT v. Madras Refineries Ltd. [2004]266 ITR 170, Sri Venkata Satyanarayna Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 101, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT [(2005) 96 ITO 186 (Bom)] (iii) The amendment in the scheme of Section 37(1), which has been introduced with effect from 1st April 2015, cannot be construed as to disadvantage to the assessee in the period prior to this amendment. This disabling provision, as set out in Explanation 2 to Section 37(1),…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ovision of section 37(1) of the Act and also made submission regarding history of legislation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. in ITA No.743/2008 (Del.) and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to AY 2009-10. 72. On the other hand, Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…ovision of section 37(1) of the Act and also made submission regarding history of legislation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co vs. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) and the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. in ITA No.743/2008 (Del.) and the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to AY 2009-10. 72. On the other hand, Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders o…

Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT (223 ITR 101) — Cited in 74 Judgments | BharatTax