← All Phrases

“commercial expediency”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 371,685 judgments

The decision most relied on for commercial expediency is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), cited in 1,484 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on commercial expediency

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
379 ITR 347 · 2015 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd.
286 ITR 1 · 2006 · High Court
359
citing judgments

For interest on borrowed capital to be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), there must be a nexus between the use of the borrowed funds and the purpose of the business. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008).

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

Judgments citing commercial expediency

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

M/S Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 367/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 366/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle- 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for all the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 362 To 369 & 338 To 345/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 & 2015-16 To 2018-19 M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Wing A, Wing B & Commissioner Of Ground Floor To 6Th Floor Income Tax, Of Wing C, International Helios Business Park, Taxation, 150 Outer Ring, Vs. Circle 1 (1), Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan:Aaccg2435N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Following Orders, Passed By The Ld. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle – 1(1), Bangalore Independently, Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act, For The Assessment Years Under Consideration As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CA
Section 192(1)Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

assessee. It was also submitted that, this arrangement was made out of social security and other reasons such as business exigencies and commercial expediency and did not contain any mark up resulting in any profit or income from it and therefore cannot be treated as 'consideration' as per the definition

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

purpose of business. Whereas, the submissions of the Ld.AR are that the assessee has utilized the funds for the business purpose and commercial expediency. The CIT(A) has granted the relief and observed at page 7 para 7 as under: 7. In Ground No.8, the assessee has disputed the disallowance

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Wanbury Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Sector 30A, Income Tax, Bsel Tech Park B Wing Circle 15(3)(1), Vs. Opp Vashi Rly Station R.No. 451 Aayakar Bhavan Vashi, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400075 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5939P

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 154Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

decision of Supreme Court in case of SA builders Ltd 158 taxman 74 is not applicable as assessee has failed to show any commercial expediency v. Assessee is borrowing money on which it is being interest at much higher rate as compared to interest received. It is not charging interest

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Yogesh Mehra, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 201 Krishna Presidency Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Air India Society North South Road No.8, Vs. Bldg. 19Th Flr, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapm6139N

For Appellant: Sri AK Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Sri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

that in the case of the assessee, the facts are exactly same as the funds were transferred to various entities inter se out of commercial expediency in order to purchase land in the name of these entities in various states in view of the Land Ceiling Act in vogue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4515/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

regard to quantification of average value of investment considering the investment made in group/associate concerns for strategic investment purpose and also the element of commercial expediency in making investment. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (supra) had considered ... triggers the moment the assessee earned exempt income. However, the Hon'ble Court has not touched the concept of commercial expediency and consideration of disallowance on actual dividend yielding investment. Further, various Hon'ble Court including the High Court of Bombay in number of cases had held that only investment

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4448/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

regard to quantification of average value of investment considering the investment made in group/associate concerns for strategic investment purpose and also the element of commercial expediency in making investment. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (supra) had considered ... triggers the moment the assessee earned exempt income. However, the Hon'ble Court has not touched the concept of commercial expediency and consideration of disallowance on actual dividend yielding investment. Further, various Hon'ble Court including the High Court of Bombay in number of cases had held that only investment

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

purpose of business. It is submitted that various Courts have laid down that investment in subsidiary / group company should be considered as part of commercial expedience and therefore, interest should be allowed. In this connection, attention is invited to judicial precedent in case of EIH Associated Hotels vs, DCIT ... holding company would be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans as a ordinarily expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. The above decision has been relied upon by Hon'ble Chennai Tribunal in case of Toll (india) Logistics (P) Limited (ITA No. 677/Mds/2012) wherein

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Mumbai

797/Mum/2018

ITA 1769/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

term profitability and sustainability. The assessee also relied on various case laws to drive home the point that it had passed the test of commercial expediency. 13.5. The assessee had charged interest on its loan to its AEs as under:- M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Sr. No. Name

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

geographical locations where the subsidiaries are IT A No . 8 6 14 / Mu m/2 0 11 situated. In our view, plea of business / commercial expediency are not applicable to such type of transactions. Under the transfer pricing provisions, it has to be seen whether a particular transaction between the related ... shifted to the subsidiary which otherwise could have been avoided if the surplus funds were available with it. In these circumstances, the principle of commercial expediency would not come into play. Therefore, in our view, as the assessee has not charged interest on outstanding receivables from the overseas subsidiaries

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

applying the real income theory as per which taxes are to be levied only on income that has actually accrued to the Appellant. Commercial Expediency [or the advances made 1.4. The learned TPO has erred in not considering the submissions of the Appellant, whereby the commercial reasons for the interest ... erred in fact and law by not considering that advances were made by the Appellant to various AE was a matter of commercial expediency as the same was utilized by the AE's for the acquiring the business of various global suppliers of liquors such as Whyte and Mackay, Bouvet

The ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Shelter Housing Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 2936/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Acit-24(1) Mumbai Shelter Housing Development 401-402, Viraj Towers, Room No.601, Western Express Highway Near Piramal Chambers, Vs. Weh Metro Station, Jeejeebhoy Lane, Andheri (East) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagfm6042A

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 68

acceptable as assisting various group companies financially which are in the same line of business of Real Estate is essentially out of commercial expediency and therefore, the Assessing Officer is not correct to state that there is no business exigency. In this regard, reference is made to the decision ... Builders (2007) 158 Taxman 74 (SC) as also relied upon by the appellant. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been

ITO Ward- 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Neminath Homes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1330/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

received as investment from bogus parties under Joint Venture agreement without appreciating the fact that same was received from bogus parties without any commercial expediency. 6. Whether On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition ... held that the burden is on to prove that the interest bearing funds had been utilized for and appellant had not justified the commercial expediency for which the interest free loans were given to its associate concerns. Thus, AO held that there is diversion of interest bearing funds

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Income Tax Officer- Turner Morrison Building, 1(1)(1), 534/579, 5Th Floor, 16 Bank Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, Pan: Aaacc1921B M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., 1(1)(1), Turner Morrison Building, 534/579, 5Th Floor, Vs. 16 Bank Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1921B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, D.R
Section 92B

Appellant from its AEs; 3. erred in making the adjustment without appreciating the fact that the said interest free advances were given out of commercial expediency in the Appellant's capacity as a holding / parent company and hence, is a shareholder activity and quasi-equity in nature; 4. erred

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

have evaluated the reasonableness of such expenses, which should not be judged only on the subjective standards but from the point of view of commercial expediency. 3.1.14 The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in not carrying out the determination of ALP as required under section