RANI SHAVER POULTRY BREEDING FARM PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 129 / 2013HC Delhi13 March 20131 pages
For Petitioner: PN MONGA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The ITAT held that the appellant did not carry out any business activity. Consequently, the disallowance of expenditures claimed by the appellant was sustained.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Rani Shaver Poultry Breeding Farm Pvt Ltd, claimed certain expenditures as business expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the appellant did not carry out any business activity in the year in question.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant was engaged in business activity and if the claimed expenditures were allowable business expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 129/2013 . . . RANI SHAVER POULTRY BREEDING FARM PVT LTD ..... Appellant . Through : Mr Prem Nath Monga with Mr Manu Monga . . . versus . . . CIT ..... Respondent . Through : Mr Abhishek Maratha . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED . HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 13.03.2013 . CM 3927/2013 . Allowed subject to all just exceptions. . CM 3928/2013 . The delay in re-filing is condoned. . This application stands disposed of. . ITA 129/2013 . Mr Maratha is present on behalf of the respondent on advance notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. . Admit. . The following substantial questions of law are framed for the consideration of this Court:- . (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and / or on facts in holding that the appellant did not carry out any business activity in the year in question? . . . . . (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining disallowance of ` 20,31,417/- representing the aggregate amount of expenditure under different heads, claimed by the appellant to have been incurred for the purpose of its business? . . . (3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the expenses under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the alternative? . . . Printing of paper books is dispensed with. The counsel for the parties may file additional documents within three months, provided they were part of the record before the Tribunal. . List in due course. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . MARCH 13, 2013 . SR . . . $ 3 .

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →