State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

70 ITR 730Supreme Court of India1968#2745 most cited

What is State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. authority for?

The essential condition for carrying on business, trade, or commerce is the making of a profit. Business is defined as repeated activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or service with a profit motive, distinguishing it from liberal arts, professions, or agriculture.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2023.

Also referred to as

State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. · business definition · trade definition · commerce definition · profit motive · repeated activity · mercantile activity · section 4(3) · section 205 · section 36(1)(v) · section 10(23c)(iv) · section 2(15) · section 40a(3)

Also reported as

2 SCR 536

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ons. and, lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transaction.' 17. In the said case, reliance and reference was made to State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director o…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)
Section 2(14)

…m business. The law in the matter, as afore-stated, is well- settled. The AO in fact has referred to a host of decisions in the matter, delineating the settled law, and which we may, therefore, cite as under: State of Punjab vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC); Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 743 (SC); Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); Lakshminarayan Ram Gopan and Son Ltd. vs. The Government of Hyderabad 1954] 25 ITR 449 (SC); Allahabad Bank ltd. vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 519 (SC); CIT vs. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra [1987] 167 ITR 0507 (Guj); CIT vs .…

Carefour Wc&C India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/42/2014HC Delhi22 Sept 2014
Section 260ASection 28Section 43D

…ture of business carried on with a profit motive, the activity being manual or mercantile as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned professions or agriculture as held by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd [1968] 70 ITR 730.732 (SC). 3.6 In the audit report against para 28(a) on form 3CD it is clearly mentioned that business has not commenced. When no stock is either available or even has been purchased by the assessee, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the business has been set up and ready to commence its business. 3.7 In view of th…