Witshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce 6 Tax Cases 399 (HL); (ii) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co.

41 ITR 414Supreme Court of India1961#14223 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 28 Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Witshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce 6 Tax Cases 399 (HL); (ii) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co.

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…lready done. In similar circumstances, the courts have held that payment to the partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The income tax appeal is dismissed." [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club Ltd The respondent is an association of persons whose business is to hold race meetings in Calcutta on a commercial basis. It holds two series of race meetings during the two seasons of the year. The respondent does not own any horses and, therefore, does not employ jockeys but they are e…

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 492/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…ness purpose of the assessee. Reliance in this regard can be made on the following decisions :- (i) Witshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce 6 Tax Cases 399 (HL); (ii) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC); (iv) Eastern Investment Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 (SC); (v) Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261 (SC). the direction of the Hon’ble DRP to Assessing Officer consider the addition u/s 37 alternatively. 14. The ground No.2 challenges TP adjustment on account of international transaction of import of raw materials with AEs. 1…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 351/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

GATEWAY TERMINALS INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3595/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax, 5(1), V. Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Aaykar Bhavan, Port, M.K. Road, Sheva, District Uran, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai – 400 707. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccg1899E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran NisarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…y, was held to be a permissible deduction, as the object was said to be increase the profits of the managed company and thereby increase its own share of the commission. Another case considered was Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 ; [1961] 2 SCR 729 (SC), where expenditure incurred by a race club for training its jockeys was allowed as a deduction as it was held to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the club's business, because if |the supply of jockeys of efficiency and skill failed, the business could no longer be possible. Reference was also made to Haji Aziz a…

QUANTIUM ADVISORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3418/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhquantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., 503, Regent Chamber, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan:Aaacq 0281C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry/Niraj D. SethFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…tum Mutual Fund and, therefore, such expenditure was allowable in the hands of the assessee. Reliance was sought to be placed on the following decisions – i) CIT v/s Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) ii) CIT v/s Royal Calcutta Turf Club [1961] 41 ITR 414 (SC) iii) Eastern Investment Limited v/s CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1 iv) Campa Beverages (P) Ltd. v/s IAC [1990] 34 ITD 241 (Del.) v) CIT v/s Alfa Laval (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2005] 149 Taxman 29 vi) S.A. Builders v/s CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 74 to say that an expenditure incurred for the purposes of business is allowable even if some benefit arises to a third part…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATION INDIA

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/1297/2010HC Delhi24 Nov 2014

Section 260A

…lusively for the purpose of trade or business of the assessee. In the present case the finding is that it was laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business and there is evidence to support this finding.” In CIT v. Royal Calcutta Turf Club, [1961] 41 ITR 414, Supreme court followed the earlier judgment in Chandulal Keshavlal(supra) to hold : - “The question as to whether the expenses of running the school for jockeys is deductible has to be decided taking into consideration the circumstances of this case. The business of the respondent was to run race meetings on a commercial scale for w…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed with

ITA/98/2010HC Delhi03 Sept 2012

Section 260ASection 37(2)

…ITA Nos.98, 113 & 143 of 2010 Page 1 of 12 $~19, 20 & 24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 3rd September, 2012. + ITA 98/2010 + ITA 113/2010 + ITA 143/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta…