INDIAN ENERGY EXCHANGE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR- 8(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal disagreed with the assessee's contention that disallowances were made on a logical and scientific basis, finding that the basis adopted by the assessee was not supported by documentary evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee disputed disallowances made by the lower authorities on various expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed a small amount for rent from communication and printing stationery expenses, and the assessee argued that disallowances were made on a logical basis.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowances made by the lower authorities on various expenses were based on a logical and scientific basis supported by documentary evidence.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH { & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submited that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt all the objections of the assessee regarding the dissatisfaction as well as the claim of the assessee of suo-motu disallowance.
Considered for disallownace. Further, regarding the rent for area for disallowed at ₹5,000/- each out of expenses of ₹36,37,338/- and ₹14,66,277/- debited in the profit and loss account under the head 'communication expenses' and 'printing stationery' but no basis of estimate of ₹5,000/- has been provided by the assessee. In the profit and loss account under Note 17 employee benefit expenses have been debited but expenses for staff welfare or other contribution to PF & not another funds and gratuity, have not been considered for disallowance. Similarly, other expenses under Note-19 include electricity expenses, training expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses but same have not been considered for disallowance.
9.1 In view of the above, we do not agree with contention of the Ld. counsel that disallownace has been made on logical and scientific basis. Further, the basis adopted by the assessee is not supported by the documentary evidence. reference to the facts of the said case. Whereas, the instant case,
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
