Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 111 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. on 4 September, 2001

Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New ... vs Assessee on 8 February, 2016

In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee 24 ITA Nos.1978 & 1979/Del/2011 Paliwal Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M/S. Paliwal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 11 December, 2019

In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Raj Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi Iv on 22 July, 2020

Ltd. [CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd., 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1447 : (2002) 254 ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that (SCC OnLine Del para 8) once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximise his profit and that the Income Tax Authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 8 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Acit-12(3)(2), Mumbai vs Midcity Bhoomi Developers Pvt Ltd.,, ... on 23 March, 2023

The appellant refers the Judgment of Hero Cycle (supra), wherein the apex court reiterating its own judgment in case of S.A. Builders held that - In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.)Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm- chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer & Anr. on 31 January, 2025

The law laid down by the Bombay High Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 215 ITR 582 was overruled whereas that of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 was approved. It was further held that it all depends on the facts and circumstance of the case as to whether the directors of the sister concern utilized the amount advanced to it by the assessee for their personal benefit, which obviously could not be said to be an advance as a measure of commercial expediency.
Delhi High Court Cites 113 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax (C) -Iii vs M/S Dd Industries Ltd. on 13 March, 2015

13. This court does not discern any rationale in the revenue's argument here. That the assessee needed the premises is not in dispute; equally it had a consistent and long standing arrangement with the sister concern, is undisputed. The rental arrangement was in the form of a commission payable according to the business of the owner of the premises, i.e the sister concern. It was not disputed that the security deposit had not been increased for a long time. That it was initially kept at the old level but increased during the year was a matter of fact. However, singling out that factor to hold against the assessee in the absence of any other material establishing dubiousness in the transaction, is not warranted. The court here recollects S. A. Builders ITA Nos.512/2013, 516/2013, 517/2013, 518/2013, 519/2013 & 526/2013 Page 14 v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) where the views of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that "once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman", and further that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit, were approved. The Supreme Court also held that:
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. R J Corp. Ltd., New Delhi on 1 October, 2018

that the AO cannot sit in the chair of businessman and dictate as to how the business is to be transacted. Relying on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. 254 ITR 377, I hold that it is for the businessman to take such business decisions as are prudent for his business and the revenue cannot put itself in the armchair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Agra Beverages Corporation P. Ltd. on 25 January, 2011

We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT V. Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee e itself),the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit. The income-tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman. As already stated above, we have to see the transfer of the borrowed funds to a sister concern from the point of view of commercial expediency and not from the point of view whether the amount was advanced for earning profits."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next