← All Phrases

“wholly and exclusively for business”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 37265 judgments

The decision most relied on for wholly and exclusively for business is Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (379 ITR 347), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on wholly and exclusively for business

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.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji
91 ITR 544 · 1973 · Supreme Court
154
citing judgments

The revenue cannot question the commercial expediency or wisdom of an expenditure incurred by a businessman, as the businessman is the best judge of their own business interests. The department's role is limited to verifying if the expenditure was genuinely incurred and was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
31 ITR 28 · 1957 · Supreme Court
137
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
14 Taxmann 99 · 1983 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Club entrance fees, if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). Furthermore, an order holding a deductor liable for TDS defaults under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry into the deductee's actual tax payment.

Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT
86 ITR 439 · 1972 · Supreme Court
96
citing judgments

Even with an existing agreement, the deductibility of an amount claimed as an expenditure, such as commission, must be decided based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, to ascertain if it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT
41 ITR 350 · 1961 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Penalties paid for a breach of law or contravention of statutory provisions are not allowable deductions as business expenditure because they cannot be considered wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. This principle is now enshrined in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing wholly and exclusively for business

Asstt CIT - 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. General Atlantic P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-5(1)(1), Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd., Level 19, Birla Auror, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400030. Pan: Aabcg7917Q ..... Respondent Appellant By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla
Section 133(6)

assessee failed to produce any material evidence for examination by the AO on account of claim of foreign travel expenditure as wholly and exclusively for business purpose." C. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the order of the AO be restored

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

grounds that the assessee has not been able to prove that asset has been used wholly and exclusively fo been used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO in r business purposes. The AO in this regard has also relied upon ITAT Pune judgment in case of this regard

Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

grounds that the assessee has not been able to prove that asset has been used wholly and exclusively fo been used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO in r business purposes. The AO in this regard has also relied upon ITAT Pune judgment in case of this regard

Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

grounds that the assessee has not been able to prove that asset has been used wholly and exclusively fo been used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO in r business purposes. The AO in this regard has also relied upon ITAT Pune judgment in case of this regard

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

grounds that the assessee has not been able to prove that asset has been used wholly and exclusively fo been used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO in r business purposes. The AO in this regard has also relied upon ITAT Pune judgment in case of this regard

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

grounds that the assessee has not been able to prove that asset has been used wholly and exclusively fo been used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The AO in r business purposes. The AO in this regard has also relied upon ITAT Pune judgment in case of this regard

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

benchmarking adopted by the assessee. It was further claimed that royalty is bonafide expenditure which is incurred for using Smirnoff brand i.e. wholly and exclusively for business purpose of the assessee. While considering the objection of the assessee in this regard, the DRP noted that the assessee has not produced

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

purpose. In addition to that, the use of yatch for personal purposes 6 Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd. excludes the criterion of 'wholly and exclusively for business purpose'. (vi) The SCN alleged in para 49(xxix) while considering the application of Shri Anil D. Ambani that the applicant purchased

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1965/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

wholly and exclusively Page 5 ITA Nos. 1964 & 1965/Bang/2018 Society for business purpose. Restricted to 80G subject to conditions. Not wholly and exclusively for business purpose. FIMI 5,79,075 Restricted to 80G subject to conditions. Not wholly and exclusively Repairs to Roads 28,67,221 for business purpose. Capital ... family. This is a labour welfare expenditure of assessee's own labour and hence it is very much an expenditure for wholly and exclusively for business purpose. It is submitted that the focus of the assessee has also been the overall welfare of the employees and not limiting itself

M/S. the Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, Sandur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1964/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 37(1)

wholly and exclusively Page 5 ITA Nos. 1964 & 1965/Bang/2018 Society for business purpose. Restricted to 80G subject to conditions. Not wholly and exclusively for business purpose. FIMI 5,79,075 Restricted to 80G subject to conditions. Not wholly and exclusively Repairs to Roads 28,67,221 for business purpose. Capital ... family. This is a labour welfare expenditure of assessee's own labour and hence it is very much an expenditure for wholly and exclusively for business purpose. It is submitted that the focus of the assessee has also been the overall welfare of the employees and not limiting itself

ACIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Glodyne Technoserve Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2864/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Prasad, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 37Section 94A

account of various expenses claimed and also out of purchases shown by the assessee ignoring the fact that only the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose can be allowed to be debited in the books so as to claim the said expenditure as business expenditure

Scorodite Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-5(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2003/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Scorodite Stainless India Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Circle – 5(3)(1) C/O. D.C. Botha & Co. Llp (Ca) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 297, Tardeo Road, Wile Mansion 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai Pan: Aabcs8987Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Suresh Pariasamy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Pariasamy

making & confirming the 10% adhoc and estimated disallowance of Rs.10,52,957/- out of some of the legitimate Business Expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes of the appellant. Being alleged disallowance made wrong on facts and bad in law therefore same may kindly be deleted. 3. That impugned

Veerath Gopalan Nair, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

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

ITA 2468/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Veerath Gopalan Nair, The Asst. Commissioner Of Gr. Floor, Gurumilan Chs Ltd., Opp. Income Tax Circle-3, Tilak Nagar Post Office, Dombivali (E), Vs. Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-421 201. Pan No. Aajpn 9435 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. S.N. Kabra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 144Section 14A

that, appellant has not wholly utilized the amount for business purpose. However, the appellant has contended that, the interest expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes so is allowable u/5.36 of the Act. Further, the appellant argued that, interest expense has been historically allowed. The interest of Rs.79

M/S Embassy Inn Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2781/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm Embassy Inn Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 1St Floor, Of Income Tax, Embassy Point, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 150 Infantry Rod, Bengaluru Bengluru Pan – Aaocs2145R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 57Section 57(3)

appreciate that the appellant had invested in Embassy One Developers Private Limited, carrying on identical business. The expenses claimed had been incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the interest paid on the debentures should have been allowed as deduction

DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industrial Ivestment & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

find that the only requirement to claim interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) is that the borrowed funds should have been expanded wholly and exclusively for business purposes. We find that it is undisputed fact that there is one-to-one correlation between the borrowed funds and the advances granted

Imperial Auto Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

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

ITA 5924/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 80I

direct nexus with the business of the appellant. The AR was therefore asked to establish that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. 5.7.2 In response thereto, the appellant had submitted that part of these expenses may be disallowing treating the same for non business purpose ... appellate proceedings, the appellant has not denied that part of the expenses claimed under the head 'Business Promotion Expenses' were not wholly and exclusively for business purpose, as stated by the AO. However, the AO has not given any justification nor pointed any specific expense claimed by the appellant

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Futurz Next Services Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3556/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153A

head hotel and staff welfare expenses. The payment made through banking channel, will not substantiate the allowability of the alleged expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. In view of these facts, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the A.O. in the assessment order

Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3715/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Pearls News Network Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 705, 7Th Floor, Manjusha Building, Circle-19(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecp3680L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th July, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-31, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application Seeking Adjournment Of The Appeal Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That Although The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On Various Dates, No One Was Appearing. Further, The Notices Sent By Rpad Were Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘Left.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Further, The Notice Was Directed To Be Served By The Revenue & The Departmental Notice Server Who Was Deputed To Serve The Dasti Summons Has Reported That The Premise Of The Assessee Was Closed & No One Was Residing There For Which The Notice Was Fixed At The Gate Of The Assessee Company. The Report Of The Notice Server Is Also Placed On Record. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 30Section 37(1)Section 68

thus he failed to satisfy the conditions laid down u/s 37(1) that only the expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose shall be allowed as deduction. Not only the appellant failed to produce necessary supporting bills and vouchers, telephone register, vehicle log book etc. during the assessment proceedings

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 6502/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40Section 928Section 92C(1)

/Del/2017 [Assessment Year : 2013-14] expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act since it has been incurred wholly and exclusively for business and same cannot be questioned by the Assessing Officer. Ground No.3 is allowed." The said ruling has also been followed while adjudicating the same issue for Assessment

Amrik Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3230/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Amrik Singh, Vs Dcit, M/S Sbg & Co., Cas, Circle-19(1), 9 Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, New Delhi. Civil Lines, New Delhi. Pan : Aaxps2407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th February, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.1,16,90,726/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued On The Assessee Calling For Various Details/Information. However, Despite A Number Of Opportunities Granted By The Ao, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. He Noted That The Assessee Has Shown Gross Receipt Of Rs.5,28,74,884/- & Net Profit Was Shown At Rs.1,18,40,726/-. Since The Assessee Did Not File The Requisite Details, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.1,32,62,315/- Appearing In The Balance Sheet As Unsecured Loan. Similarly, In Absence Of Details Filed For Substantiating The Various Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss Account, The Ao Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.11,89,992/- Being 50% Of The Interest Paid For Unsecured Loan Of Rs.23,79,844/-. Similarly, He Also Disallowed 50% Of Expenses On Account Of Other Expenses (Rs.10,71,926/-), Tour & Travel Expenses (Rs.7,70,165/-) & Depreciation (Rs.9,61,370/-) All Totaling To Rs.39,93,453/-. Thus, The Ao Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,89,46,500/-.

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 68

offered from income from house property and income from other sources only the claims made cannot be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose, a statutory prerequisite for claim of deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. As the AO has allowed expenditure for maintenance