wholly and exclusively for business — 265 case laws

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 573/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R

Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

same. Thus, the assessee could not adduce any evidence to prove that the expenditure incurred for telephone and vehicle were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. No log book has been maintained by the assessee in respect of use of telephone and vehicle, hence, the fact that the personal

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 572/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R

Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

same. Thus, the assessee could not adduce any evidence to prove that the expenditure incurred for telephone and vehicle were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. No log book has been maintained by the assessee in respect of use of telephone and vehicle, hence, the fact that the personal

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 559/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R

Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

same. Thus, the assessee could not adduce any evidence to prove that the expenditure incurred for telephone and vehicle were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. No log book has been maintained by the assessee in respect of use of telephone and vehicle, hence, the fact that the personal

Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 558/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr D.R

Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

same. Thus, the assessee could not adduce any evidence to prove that the expenditure incurred for telephone and vehicle were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. No log book has been maintained by the assessee in respect of use of telephone and vehicle, hence, the fact that the personal

Y.G. Capital Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Kolkata

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

ITA 1095/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

meeting with its customers, suppliers and bankers at Hotel J W Marriot and these expenses in respect of such meeting are wholly and exclusively for business. However, the appellant neither filed any details of the unit acquired nor filed any details or supporting evidence, which could substantiate that these expenses

Asia Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 916/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: ShriH.P. Mahajani, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 14A

Kanga and Palkhivala, in Law and Practice of Income Tax Vol.1, 10th edition, have pointed out at page 953 that the expression "wholly and exclusively for business" is not to be interpreted as wholly and exclusively for the assessee's own business only. A holding company, for example, has often ... allowed as a deduction for earning such income. In this connection it is submitted that expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for business as stipulated u/s.37 is much wider than expenditure laid or expended for earning dividend income stipulated u/s. 57 (refer, India Cement v. CIT 60ITR

Shridev Procon Ltd., (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 300/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR &For Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 68

reasonable disallowance in light of this fact. 7.2. Under Section 37(1) of the Act, only those expenses that are incurred "wholly and exclusively" for business purposes are allowable. The onus is on the assessee to substantiate the business nexus of such expenses. In the present case, no documentary evidence ... undertaken solely for business purposes. The absence of such evidence weakens the claim of the assessee that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 7.3. The judicial precedents relied upon by the CIT(A) further support the disallowance. At the same time, we recognize that

Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

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

ITA 593/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

holding that the prior period item . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 22 of 41 as well as expenses incurred were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 24. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO by observing as under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 115Section 115JSection 237Section 80J

holding that the prior period item . IT(TP)A No.446 & 593/Bang/2020 Page 22 of 41 as well as expenses incurred were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 24. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO by observing as under