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

When claiming an expenditure under section 37(1), the onus is on the assessee to prove the necessary facts, not on the revenue. Mere production of vouchers is insufficient if the genuineness of payment is doubted.

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.

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

…and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who only is in the intimate know of his affairs. (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). There can again be no quarrel on the proposition that the assessee can furnish only what is available with it, as surely law cannot impose an impossible burden. Page 10 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Sure, the assessee was constrained for want of Form 3CL at the…

ACIT Cir -4(2) (1), Thane vs. M/S. Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…TD 95) 5. M/s K.V. Minerals, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 15.07.2013 (ITAT No. 1996/Hyd/2011) 6. Davinder Singh v ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ITAT, Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd 1951 AIR 108 (19 ITR 191) (SC) 8. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v/s CIT(1969) (73 ITR 634) (SC) 9. L.B. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd v/s CIT (19 CTR) 185: (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC) 10. CIT V. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C) 11. CIT V/S Motor & General Stores Pvt. Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (S.C In the appellant's case, all commission agents confirmed having rendered services to the appellant company and receipt of payment against the…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CITVs Nestle India Ltd. (Del) 199 Taxman (Mag) 321. • The doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing aut…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Builder Mumbai Realty Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 22/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…o the business of the assessee of Rs. 26,31,67,414/- instead of confirming the same. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in appreciating the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lashmirathan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT(1969) 73 ITR 634(SC) wherein it was held that in order to claim that an nexus of that expenditure to its business what the assessee has failed to dispose off. 4. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee in respect of reversal of disallowance u/s 14A of R…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…o the business of the assessee of Rs. 26,31,67,414/- instead of confirming the same. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in appreciating the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lashmirathan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT(1969) 73 ITR 634(SC) wherein it was held that in order to claim that an nexus of that expenditure to its business what the assessee has failed to dispose off. 4. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee in respect of reversal of disallowance u/s 14A of R…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 20/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…o the business of the assessee of Rs. 26,31,67,414/- instead of confirming the same. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in appreciating the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lashmirathan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT(1969) 73 ITR 634(SC) wherein it was held that in order to claim that an nexus of that expenditure to its business what the assessee has failed to dispose off. 4. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee in respect of reversal of disallowance u/s 14A of R…

Messung Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2585/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2585/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)

…sion allowable u/s. 37(1). The onus to prove the necessary facts is on the appellant as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. reported in 19 ITR 191(SC) and in case of Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 73 ITR 634(SC). Further, the Supreme Court in case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 293 (SC) wherein it has been held that where an assessee claims deduction the onus on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. In the instant case the appellant has failed to substantiate its claim with documen…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…vidence, even the names of parties whom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…vidence, even the names of parties whom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before…

The Jt. CIT, Range-9, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Unique Metropoils, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3140/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…he ld. Assessing Officer I.T.A Nos. 3140/Ahd/2015 & 3093/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 7 DCIT vs. Unique Metropolis relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kolkata Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 and Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company 73 ITR 634 that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is entirely on the assessee. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Brijvasi Udhyog Ltd. by ITAT Agra Bench 31 taxmann.com 271 Agra in which it was held that mere payment would not…

M/S. Unique Metropolis, Ahmedabad vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3093/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…he ld. Assessing Officer I.T.A Nos. 3140/Ahd/2015 & 3093/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 7 DCIT vs. Unique Metropolis relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kolkata Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 and Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company 73 ITR 634 that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is entirely on the assessee. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Brijvasi Udhyog Ltd. by ITAT Agra Bench 31 taxmann.com 271 Agra in which it was held that mere payment would not…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hot…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hot…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hot…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hot…

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

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

ACIT Cir -4(2) (1), Thane vs. M/S. Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Builder Mumbai Realty Private Limited, Pune

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

Messung Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

The Jt. CIT, Range-9, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Unique Metropoils, Ahmedabad

M/S. Unique Metropolis, Ahmedabad vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Ahmedabad

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai