What is Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The question of whether an amount claimed as an expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes must be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Income-tax Officer retains the discretion to determine the deductibility of an expense, and the mere existence of an agreement or actual payment does not bind the officer to allow the deduction under Section 37.

How many judgments cite Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (63 ITR 57), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 37, Section 37(1), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c).

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (63 ITR 57)

Grass Associates Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corp.Ward-13), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 71/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…it all the time, as for personal purposes; again, in the absence of proper record. It is well-settled that it is permissible for the tax authorities to consider disallowing the sum estimated as incurred in excess (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC); Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC)). Reference in this context may also be made to CIT v. Eastern Condiments P. Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 251 (Ker); Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 152 (All). The AO has, in the absence of any material, viz. property-wi…

M/S Pothys, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1360/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1360/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Pothys, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.15, Dr.Nageswara Rao Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffp 2437B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 200Section 206Section 206CSection 234ESection 37Section 91

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A ’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No. 1360/CHNY/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/s. Pothys, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.15, Dr.Nageswara Rao Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [PAN: AAFFP 2437B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri Y. Sri…

Rhine Energy LLP, Bhagirath Palace vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nefac)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2021-22 Rhine Energy Llp Vs. Assessment Unit, Flat No. 4, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Mahalaxmi Market, Department, Nfac Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. Delhi - 110 006 Pan Aatfr6490A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 270ASection 37Section 37(1)

…34% of Rs. 20,00,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,26,835/-. Earning of income is not sine qua non for allowing deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) wrongly relied on judgment in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) 63 ITR 65 relating to capital expenditure. In present, the expenditure incurred is revenue in nature and hence the same is fully allowable. The reasoning is not just fair and reasonable. Since the matter was regarding launch of new medium food product and promote a new line of business. Therefore the assessee was entitled to get allowable expenses of Rs. 20,…

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19 (1) & (2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any paymerit like royalty even if such payment CIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman(Mag)321 • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the…

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any paymerit like royalty even if such payment CIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman(Mag)321 • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any paymerit like royalty even if such payment CIT Vs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman(Mag)321 • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the…

Zheng Yuan Mobiles Private Limited, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle -30, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

…the course of business operation is excessive and unreasonable and is liable to be disallowed. In this regard, following case laws are hereby relied upon as under: 1. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439 2. Swadesh Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT(SC) 63 ITR 57 3. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634 The submission of the assessee was given thoughtful consideration and keeping in view the above facts, the expenses incurred on the following heads are hereby disallowed @30% of total expenses: Sl. Heads of Expenses Amount of Disallowance of No. Expenses (in Rs.) expenses @ 30% claimed in P…

Vitrag Prints, Surat vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…the notices issued by the department under sec. 133(6) are unserved on the creditors. The books of accounts were rightly rejected under section 145 of the Act. 4.iv. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57, that the question whether an amount -claimed as expenditure was laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business, profession or vocation has to be decided on the facts and in the light of the circumstances of the each case. The mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and the commission agent, assumi…

Nsk Advisors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Waseem KhanFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…nder consideration. The ld. A.O. disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. The first appellate authority upheld the said disallowance by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. [2005] 279 ITR 51 (Ker.) which has held that whether the business has commenced and that the assessee has incurred expenses relating to the said business activity has to be proved by the assessee and if the assessee fails to discharge its onus, the…

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 498/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blejt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Central Circle – 3(1) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/Mum/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 498/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani V. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) 1, Sundaram Bunglow Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor Lambe Hanuman Road Air India Building, Nariman Point Opp. Saiffe Society Mumbai – 400 021 Gujrat - 395006 Pan: Ajyps2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…had no reliable set of books which he could examine and arrive at a reasonable decision with respect to taxability of various transactions identified during the search process. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)], the Assessing Officer is required to delve into the accounts and scrutinize them before arriving at the decision regarding their complexity. In this case, there were no reliable books existing with the assesse and a huge cache of documents had been located which needed correlation. The nature and complexity of the accounts was crystal clea…

Ramesh Kumar Nangalia Katra (HUF) vs. Commissioner I.Tax - Xvi, Kolkata

ITA/449/2004HC Calcutta09 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 9, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv.. … For Appellant Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …For Respondent The Court:- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th September, 2003 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. 1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Misdirected Itself In Law In Not Appreciating That All The Necessary Particulars For Verification Of The Allowability Of The Claim Of Deductibility Of The Commission Payment In Computation Of Income Were Found Out & Verified In The Order Of The First Appellate Authority, That Is The Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] & Whether The Tribunal Was Justified In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Claim For Deduction Of The Commission Payment Made By The Assessing Officer & Whether The Finding Arrived At Was Perverse ?

Section 131Section 254(2)Section 260ASection 37

…ision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noting the decision in SWEDESH COTTON MILLs CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the…

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1771/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R

Section 14BSection 35DSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 43Section 43B

…s being toward compensation for the delayed payment of the dues under the said Act, found acceptance by the Ld. CIT(A), with the assesse placing reliance on the decision by the Apex Court in the case of, amongst others, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 233 ITR 199 (SC), wherein it stands held that where a composite levy includes both an element of compensation as also penalty, it shall be open for the Authority to allow the proportion which in its estimation is towards compensation, as a deductible business expenditure. Consequently, he determined 60% of the levy as penal in nature, so that the balance 40%…

The DCIT, Baroda Circle-1, Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1762/AHD/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT D.R

Section 14BSection 35DSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 43Section 43B

…s being toward compensation for the delayed payment of the dues under the said Act, found acceptance by the Ld. CIT(A), with the assesse placing reliance on the decision by the Apex Court in the case of, amongst others, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 233 ITR 199 (SC), wherein it stands held that where a composite levy includes both an element of compensation as also penalty, it shall be open for the Authority to allow the proportion which in its estimation is towards compensation, as a deductible business expenditure. Consequently, he determined 60% of the levy as penal in nature, so that the balance 40%…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…not filed any evidence, even the names of parties whom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if i…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…not filed any evidence, even the names of parties whom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if i…

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2100/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं डॉ एम एल मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND Dr. M.L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2100/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The ACIT, M/s. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), v. Ltd., Chennai - 34. RR Tower III, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. PAN: AADCR 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/CHNY/2017 (in I.T.A. No. 2100/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR

Section 143(3)

…e Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 57, has held that the taxing authorities have right to consider whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee was excessive. 5.15 it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was able to harvest GP @ 6.26% in A Yr 2013-14, from same business, by same management, as against GP of ITA Nos. 1852/Mum/2015 & Ors 10 M/s Kaka Rayon 4.44% declared i…

M/S. Gem Electro Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

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

ITA 2/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul , Addl. CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 8(1)

…on, additions made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.’’ 2.6 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and also relied on the following decisions. 1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT 233 ITR 199 ( SC) 2. Bokaro Power Supply Co. vs DCIT , Circle 3(1), New Delhi (ITA No.3405/Del/2014 (assessee ) and ITA No.3692/Del/2014 (Revenue ) date of order 31-10-2017, ITAT Delhi Bench 2.7 We have heard the ld. counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the materials placed on record, deliberated upon judgements cited by the parties as w…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R

Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…as a deduction under section 37(1) because such payment is for infraction of law [Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 684, 690-91(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, whi…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R

Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…as a deduction under section 37(1) because such payment is for infraction of law [Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 684, 690-91(SC) ; Standard Batteries Ltd. v. err, (J995) 211 ITR 444, 446(SC) ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. err. (1998) 233 ITR 199, 202(SC) ; CIT v. Bharat Television Pvt. Ltd_, (1996) 218 ITR 173, 175, J 78(AP) ; CIT v , Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 113. 121 (AP) . 10. In view of the above, the above, the amount of GBP 11.8 million payable by Mylan, being the same amount received from Servier under Article 23(2) of the EU Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, whi…

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Grass Associates Pvt Ltd, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corp.Ward-13), Kochi

M/S Pothys, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Rhine Energy LLP, Bhagirath Palace vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nefac)

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19 (1) & (2), New Delhi

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, Delhi

Zheng Yuan Mobiles Private Limited, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle -30, Delhi

Vitrag Prints, Surat vs. NFAC, Delhi

Nsk Advisors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

Jt CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani, Surat

Ramesh Kumar Nangalia Katra (HUF) vs. Commissioner I.Tax - Xvi, Kolkata

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Baroda

The DCIT, Baroda Circle-1, Baroda vs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited, Baroda

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ACIT Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai vs. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

M/S. Gem Electro Mechanicals Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad