What is 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) authority for?

The assessee bears the onus of proving the genuineness, identity, and capacity of creditors for cash credits, and must substantiate claims for business expenses and losses with supporting evidence to establish their deductibility under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 271(1)(c), Section 36(1)(va), Section 41(1), Section 41(2), Section 43B.

19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) (73 ITR 634)

Q: How many judgments cite 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) (73 ITR 634), spanning 2016 to 2025.

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…make any distinction between commercial loans and non-commercial loans, the onus lies, in the facts found on evidence in this case, on the assessce to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. For this, reliance was placed Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 at 649. In the case of a cash credit entry it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditors but also to prove 7 Ritika Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transactions. On the issue of burden of proof a very specific and illustrious decision from the…

B.K. SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…mmission paid to the related persons. Ld. CIT (A) recorded that assessee did not provide the information asked for. He referred to following cases laws :- (i) Schneider Electric India Ltd. vs. CIT 304 ITR 360 (Del.); (ii) Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC); (iii) The Printer House (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 18(1) in ITA No.1674/Del/2011; (iv) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 88 ITD 95. 6 Referring to the above case laws, ld. CIT (A) enhanced the total income by disallowing the entire commission paid as under :- “ In view of the provisions of Sec. 37 (1) of the…

GRASS ASSOCIATES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. THE ITO,CORP.WARD-13), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 71/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…of proper record. It is well-settled that it is permissible for the tax authorities to consider disallowing the sum estimated as incurred in excess (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC); Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC)). Reference in this context may also be made to CIT v. Eastern Condiments P. Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 251 (Ker); Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 152 (All). The AO has, in the absence of any material, viz. property-wise details; basis for payment, itself unevidenced, estimated the…

CHATHANKANDATH USHA,KOOTANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

…essee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad Page 4 of 5 ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC); and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). Further, the same would extend to the entire income claimed exempt. The Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s daughter (ITA No. 26 & 27/Coch/2022 dated 02.1.2023), as indeed in some others, allowed the assessee benefit by th…

DR. C USHA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…cords that the principle that it is the assessee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). Further, the same would extend to the entire income claimed exempt. The Tribunal in the case of the assessee’s daughter 7 Dr. C. UshaModern Hospital v. Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 26 & 27/Coch/2022 dated 02.1.2023), as indeed…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ect to which, the contribution/s is given. The burden in law to prove his return, or the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, case law on which is legion (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)); and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The law gets more strict in case of exemption provisions (H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)). In Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. v. CIT [2…