Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

63 ITR 57Supreme Court of India1967#1698 most cited

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.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 63 ITR 57 · Section 37 · Section 37(1) · wholly and exclusively for business · business expenditure · Income-tax Officer discretion · deductibility of expenses · factual determination · business expediency · commission payment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80ICSection 144

Issues it is cited on

section 14bsection 10(2)(xv)section 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 28(iv)section 43b(b)section 10(2)section 36(2)going concernbusiness expediencysection 36(1)(vii)

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

M/S. Vignette India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 980/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…the details of salary payment even through the bank statement or by any documentary evidence regarding the rendering of the services by the employees to support the claim. Hence, based on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills 63 ITR 57, in the absence of any other evidence produced by the assessee, we decline to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A). 10. Regarding the rent claimed for the year ending 31.03.2001, the same is allowed as the expenses is related to setting up of the business notwithstanding the fact that the revenue earning business activities have not been comm…

DCIT, Corporate Citcle -3(2), Chennai vs. Vsl India Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.138/Chny/2018. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh KumarFor Respondent: Mr.T.Vasudevan,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 75

…delayed payment of service tax is only compensatory in nature placing reliance in the following decisions, i) Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Vs.C.I.T in (1980) 123 ITR 429 (SC) ii) Lachmanda Mathuradas in 254 ITR 799 (SC) iii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs. 233 ITR 199 (SC), :- 4 -: directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of interest on delayed payment of Service Tax. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is before us in the present appeal. 4. Before us, ld. Senior D.R placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities and also on the decision of Delhi High Court in th…

M/S Steel Kraft India, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 615/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…be a substitute for evidence that those acts were done by the managing agents. That it is permissible for the assessing authority to go behind the written documents is trite law, for which reference may be made to Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC). In Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 0439 (SC), where, again, the issue involved was the allowance of claim for commission expenditure, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the so-called selling agency agreement between the assessee-firm and the selling agency firm was only a make-believe arrangement. It was merely a device to…

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hazira Port Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1196/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A). It Was

Section 143(3)

…as a different business altogether. In E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 253 (Mad.), the High Court inferred the same to be different business following the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65, where a dealer in cloth proceeded to set up a textile mill, which was however started, so that the loss got disallowed as capital loss. The High Court understood the facts in this case as comparable in that the assessee's project for manufacture of new methanol abandoned would not be allowed. Since the appellant company has incurred an expenditure…

ACIT Circle 1, Salem vs. M/S Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd, Salem

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 484/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 482 & 484/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Tamil Nadu State Transport Tax, Vs. Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Circle -1, No. 12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Aaact 7678J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ("#यथ%/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, CIT
Section 14BSection 37(1)

…oyees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act for the delayed payment of contribution of provident fund is deductible in computing the income the business of the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of Swedeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT (1998) 233 ITR 199 (SC) has held that the authority under the Income- tax Act, irrespective of the nomenclature given to the imposts in the statute whether termed as penalty or damages or otherwise has to find out whether it is compensatory or in penal in nature, in order to allow the compensatory part as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income- tax Act. The Co…

ACIT Circle 1, Salem vs. M/S Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd, Salem

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 482/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 482 & 484/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Tamil Nadu State Transport Tax, Vs. Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Circle -1, No. 12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Aaact 7678J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ("#यथ%/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, CIT
Section 14BSection 37(1)

…oyees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act for the delayed payment of contribution of provident fund is deductible in computing the income the business of the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of Swedeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.CIT (1998) 233 ITR 199 (SC) has held that the authority under the Income- tax Act, irrespective of the nomenclature given to the imposts in the statute whether termed as penalty or damages or otherwise has to find out whether it is compensatory or in penal in nature, in order to allow the compensatory part as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income- tax Act. The Co…

Shivalik Ventures P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD-1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…se of Walfort Shares & securities (326 ITR 1)(SC). Relying on the decision of Nainital Bank (supra), the Ld D.R contended that each and every loss is not deductible. He also placed his reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills (63 ITR 57) to contend that the expenses, which are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business alone are deductible. The Ld D.R, by placing reliance on the following observations made by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaipur Electro P Ltd (134 CTR 237)(Raj.) submitted that the principle that the businessman is the best judge…

Kay Dee Industries, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2069/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 37

…nsider whether expenditure incurred by the assessee was excessive. The ratio of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases is relied upon :- i) Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439; ii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57; iii) Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 held as under :- “ In our opinion, the facts of this ease come within the rule laid down by this court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (3). The question whether an…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6648/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

…Act is that Assessing Officer must necessarily examine the books of accounts before issuing a show cause notice to direct the assessee to get his accounts audited by the special auditor. The assessee in support seek to refer following judgments as under:- i) 233 ITR 199 (SC) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs CIT IT(TP)A No.6181/Del/2015 and 2 Others Unitech Ltd.Vs. DCIT, New Delhi the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that honest attempt to understand the accounts must first be made. Special Audit should not be directed upon a cursory look at the accounts. For an order of special audit, the Assessing Officer must scru…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6181/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

…Act is that Assessing Officer must necessarily examine the books of accounts before issuing a show cause notice to direct the assessee to get his accounts audited by the special auditor. The assessee in support seek to refer following judgments as under:- i) 233 ITR 199 (SC) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs CIT IT(TP)A No.6181/Del/2015 and 2 Others Unitech Ltd.Vs. DCIT, New Delhi the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that honest attempt to understand the accounts must first be made. Special Audit should not be directed upon a cursory look at the accounts. For an order of special audit, the Assessing Officer must scru…

M/S. Motherson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav RastogiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…rson Sumi Infotech & Designs Ltd., New Delhi. placed reliance on the following judgments which mainly pertained to the theory of “Form over substance”. The pages 169 to 172 of the same paper book contain the details :- 1. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT 63 ITR 57 (SC). 2. Madhavji Dharmashingh Mfg Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 78 ITR 62 (SC). 3. JK Cotton Mfrs Ltd. vs., CIT 101 ITR 221. 4. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd Vs CTO 154 ITR 148 (S). 5. OECD guidelines. 3. The DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee regarding treatment of transactions on account of “outstanding receivables” because of the retrospective am…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he case may be, not deductible, i.e., for that reason. The law in the matter is well settled and the case law legion, and toward which we may cite some decisions: A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67 (SC) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65 (SC) Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 927 (SC) 12 ITA Nos. 1858 & 1980/Mds/2011 (AY 2004-05) Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 842 (SC) None of the decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, clarifying the law in the matter, have been considered in the case law relied upon by the assessee/…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…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 (Se) 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 ri1imcd by the assessee was excessive. 6.14 IUs pertinent to mention here that the appellant was able to harvest the GP @ 29.74% in A Yr 2012-13, from same business, by same management, as against GP of 22.08% in A Y 2009-10,22.33% in A Yr 2010-11 and 26.43% in A Y…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Bgr Investment Holdings Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes; the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed; and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 476/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 31.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…e capitalized. Even if therefore the venture did not materialize, the expenditure would remain capital in nature (para 23 of the impugned order – IO). Reliance for the purpose is placed on a number of decisions, viz. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65 (SC); Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 170 (Mad) (refer paras 24 and 25 of IO). Without doubt, the character of the expenditure would not alter merely because the object or the purpose for which it is incurred does not fructify. The success of the expenditure does not determine its admissibility, or result in a change in i…

Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 290/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.290/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.07.2017
Section 143(3)

…rged to revenue under the circumstances. The same shall however not make it a revenue expenditure. Why, an abortive capital expenditure is also capital in nature and, thus, a capital expenditure (refer, inter alia, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65 (SC); Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 842 (SC)), even as accounting policy may dictate it being written off, and not incorrectly so. Both the revenue and capital expenditure, it may be appreciated, are incurred only for the purpose of business, with a view to generate revenue. How successful it would actually be is a matter subsequen…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ajuba Solutions India P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3428/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3428/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.Parthasarathy, Sr. ManagerFor Respondent: Finance
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 29Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40A(7)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘B’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3428/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajuba Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle – I(1), Vs. 12-02 Tidel Park, Chennai – 600 034. 4 Canal Bank Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AACCA 8448D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Mrs. Veni S.Raj, Jt. CIT अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appe…

Arsh Iron & Steel Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 206/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…(SC) Sickhomal & Sons vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 839, 844 (Del) Amritlal & Co. P Ltd. vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 719 (Bom) Travancore Titanum Product Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 277 CIT vs. Indian Cements Ltd. (1975) 98 ITR 69 (Mad) Swadesh Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC) Lachminaryan Madan Lal vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 739 (SC) WT Suren & Co. P. LTd. vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 602 (Bom) CIT vs. Central India Machiery Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1985) 45 CTR (MP) 126, 135 17. In paragraph 12, I had upheld disallowance of commission paid to Kunal Pipes (I) Pvt. Ltd. There are other parties to whom commission paid. The services render…