Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Dcit, Circle - 9(1), Kolkata , Kolkata vs M/S Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd., ... on 21 August, 2019 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs M/S. Walchand & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay on 17 March, 1967

20. Ld. Counsel also relied on the case of CIT v. Walchand& Co. etc. [1967] 65 ITR 381, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the Revenue. The essence is that a businessman himself is the best judge in determining the reasonableness / usefulness / benefit of an expenditure which is wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. The Revenue has no role to play in determining the reasonableness / usefulness / benefit of a business expenditure. However, in the instant case, the TPO had judged the reasonableness of the aforesaid intra­group service charge (regarding which there was no dispute that the same was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business) from his own point of view and computed the arm's length price of the international transactions under review at 'NIL' value based on his main allegation that the benefits claimed to have been received by the assessee from Nalco Pacific under the aforesaid agreement would not be ones for which an independent enterprise would be willing to pay. Hence, the first ground for confirming the disallowance by CIT (A) will not stand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 303 - J C Shah - Full Document

Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012

Ld. Counsel also referred to the case of CIT v. EKL Appliances (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that rule 10B of the Rules does not authorize disallowance of any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same or that in the view of the Revenue the expenditure was un remunerative. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that the quantum of expenditure can be examined by the TPO as per law and so long as the expenditure or payment has been demonstrated to have been incurred or laid out for the purposes of business, it is no concern of the TPO to disallow the same on any extraneous reasoning. But in the present case before us, the TPO judged the reasonableness of the aforesaid intra­group service NLC Nalco India Ltd. AY 2003­04& 2004­05 charge and computed the arm's length price of the international transactions under review at 'NIL' value based on his main 16 17 ITA No.2509/Kol/2017 M/s. Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 352 - R V Easwar - Full Document

C.I.T., Punjab, Haryana, J & K, H.P. & ... vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. ... on 2 January, 1976

JK Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 612 (SC); Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 11, 17 (SC); CIT v. PANIPAT Woollen and General Mills Company Ltd. (1976) 103 ITR 66, 71 (SC); Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 664 (Patna); Steel Containers Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 995,1008 (Cal).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 173 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next