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

73 ITR 634Supreme Court of India1969#1872 most cited

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.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v CIT · section 37(1) · burden of proof · assessee · expenditure · vouchers · genuineness of payment · business expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 41(2)Section 43BSection 2(24)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(i)section 41(2)section 148(1)explanation to section 37section 153a proceedingsprohibited by lawsection 158bdonus of proofgoing concernbusiness expediencysection 271(l)(c)section 30

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

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 1511/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…

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 1510/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…

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 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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 Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)

…88 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount “guess work”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 has held 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 on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 57, has h…

Contour Entertainment Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2416/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2416/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Contour Entertainment Inc. बिधम/ Dcit(It) 2(1)(1) C/O Rashmi Modi & Co. Air Building, Mumbai. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 7, Vallabhji Kanji Building, 173/175, Princess Street, Opp. Corporation Bank, Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc3711D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri V. Sreekar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.01.2017 Passed To Pursuant Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp' For Short) U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal As Read: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 144Section 144C(13)

…falls within the ambit of sec. 37(1) of the I. T. Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts is on the assesse as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC) and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CII 73 ITR 634 (SC). ITA. NO.2416/M/2017 A.Y.2013-14 3.2.13 In yet another case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293(SC), it was held that where an assessee claims a deduction, the onus is on him to prove al material facts on record to substantiate his claim. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas Patel 164 ITR…

Hiq Power Associates Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1160/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. C.S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT

…Since, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. It is for the assessee to establish by evidence that a particular allowance is justified and relied on 73 ITR 634 (SC). Therefore, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. It is clear from the above that against the low income admitted by the assessee,the assessee has claimed huge expenditure under the head employees salary and incentives. The assessee may be right…

M/S Steel Kraft India, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 615/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…its respect inasmuch as the same renders it being regarded as incurred ‘wholly and exclusively for business purposes’, qualifying it as deductible u/s. 37(1). 5.2 I may next advert to the law in the matter. In Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC), it stood held that the burden of proving that services were rendered by the managing agents for earning the remuneration lay 4 Steel Craft India v. ITO upon the company and if no reliable evidence was forthcoming, the Tribunal was competent to reach the conclusion that it did. The recitals in the managing agency agreement which authorized…

Kay Dee Industries, Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2069/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 37

…ive. The ratio of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases is relied upon :- i) Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439; ii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57; iii) Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 held as under :- “ In our opinion, the facts of this ease come within the rule laid down by this court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (3). The question whether an amount claimed as an expenditure was laid out or expended whol…

Yami Associates, Rajnandgaon vs. I.T.O.-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Yami Associates, The Income Tax Officer-I, Yalsco Carrier Building, F.C.I. Road, Near Raipur Naka, Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vs. Pan: Aaafy7073P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain (DR)
Section 143

…assessee and burden is on him to prove that the expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as has been held in plethora of cases like CIT Vs. Kolkata Agencies Limited 19 ITR 191 (SC), Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC), Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau). 227 ITR 846, Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58. In case expenses are not supported by proper bills and vouchers, reasonable addition can be made out of partial disallowance of expenses, though books of accounts are audited and auditor has not made any adverse comment as held…

Kulin Kumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the same. Resultantly, this ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1414/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1414 & 1415/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 44ASection 64(1)(ii)

…the burden of proving the necessary facts is on the assessee as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 9 I.T.A. No. 1414, 1415 & 1189/Mum/2015 Kulin Kumar Shah versus Calcutta agency Ltd 19 ITR 191(SC) and Laxmi Ratan cotton Mills Co Ltd versus CIT 73 ITR 634(SC). After considering the facts as well as legal position in the present case, we are also of the view that assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus by producing any document in support of its claim regarding paying of commission to these two parties. The Ld. AR also could not point out before us as to what services were being rendered…

Sun Minerals, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessees' are dismissed

ITA 138/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Sun Minerals Vs D.C.I.T., Circle 6 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Abgfs5262D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…3 of 5 ITA No 138 of 2016 Sun Minerals Hyderabad. 11. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Davinder Singh v. ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ASR), CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) (SC), Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (73 ITR 634) (SC) and L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR) (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC). 12. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (88 ITD 95) held as under; "51. Examining this matter from another angle, we feel that the onus of proof that the commissi…

Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2708/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69C

…ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount of "guess worfc\ The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634, has held 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 on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court, in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 TTR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 7.17 Since…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 2697/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69C

…ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount of "guess worfc\ The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634, has held 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 on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court, in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 TTR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 7.17 Since…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mr. Sanjay Rambhau Shinde, Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 67/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.67/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income-Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Ward -2(3), Aurangabad. … बिाम / V/S. Mr. Sanjay Rambhau Shinde, Ashok Nagar, Masantpur, Midc Chikalthana, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan : Atkps6429C

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 142Section 143(3)

…d merely estimating the profits @ 18%? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmiration Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 73 ITR 634 that onus lies on the assessee to prove the claim of expenditure? 3. Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)’s decision of restriction of unexplained investment to 50% of what was determined by the AO, ignoring the fact that the cash book was showing negative balance on the date of deposit of cash was justi…

Sanjay Rambhau Shinde, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 443/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.67/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income-Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Ward -2(3), Aurangabad. … बिाम / V/S. Mr. Sanjay Rambhau Shinde, Ashok Nagar, Masantpur, Midc Chikalthana, … प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan : Atkps6429C

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A. AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 142Section 143(3)

…d merely estimating the profits @ 18%? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law whether the CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmiration Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. reported in 73 ITR 634 that onus lies on the assessee to prove the claim of expenditure? 3. Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)’s decision of restriction of unexplained investment to 50% of what was determined by the AO, ignoring the fact that the cash book was showing negative balance on the date of deposit of cash was justi…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ITR 10 (Se) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount of "guess work'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634, has held 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 on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court, in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (Se) 86 ITR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 57, has…

Asst CIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Mumbai

ITA 7497/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Dcit 20(2), Unit No.605, Business Suites बनाम/ Mumbai- 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 24(2) Dinesh V. Bahirwani, 612, Piramal Chambers, Unit No.605, Business बनाम/ Lalbaug, Suites 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. Mumbai-400012 S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Appellant By Shri Vipul Shah (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2016 18/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…ur Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 390 (Ker); CIT vs. Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj)), and commission expenditure in particular (refer: Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)) are referred to draw home the point. The findings by the ld. CIT(A) are based on bald claims, de hors any material on record. Merely making general statements, without basis in any material on record, which has moved the ld. CIT(A), would not prove a claim. His taking cognizance of the copies of the confirmations, i.e., which are inadmissibl…

Dinesh V Bahirwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

ITA 7471/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dinesh V. Bahirwani, Dcit 20(2), Unit No.605, Business Suites बनाम/ Mumbai- 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit 24(2) Dinesh V. Bahirwani, 612, Piramal Chambers, Unit No.605, Business बनाम/ Lalbaug, Suites 9 Ploot No.83, Vs. Mumbai-400012 S.V. Rd, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400054 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Abrpb3559K Appellant By Shri Vipul Shah (Ar) Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2016 18/10/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)

…ur Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 390 (Ker); CIT vs. Navsari Cotton & Silk Mills [1982] 135 ITR 546 (Guj)), and commission expenditure in particular (refer: Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)) are referred to draw home the point. The findings by the ld. CIT(A) are based on bald claims, de hors any material on record. Merely making general statements, without basis in any material on record, which has moved the ld. CIT(A), would not prove a claim. His taking cognizance of the copies of the confirmations, i.e., which are inadmissibl…

H. Parsons P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed accordingly

ITA 6638/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6638/Mum/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. H. Parsons Private Limited Income Tax Officer 2(1)(4) बनाम/ Asian Bldg., Nicol Road, 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400038 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach1326D

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)

…less it is duly supported by the relevant documentary evidences. Strong reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) L H Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 125 hR 293(SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Laxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC) Where an appellant claim a deduction, the onus is on the appellant to bring all material facts on record to substantiate the claim made by it." 5.3.3 Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court, the disallowance of new claim of flat beer discount disallowed by the Assessin…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…ee could not submit the details of these expenditure. He relied heavily on pages 96 & 97 of the assessment order. To substantiate his arguments, he relied on the decision of CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. – 19 ITR 181 (SC); Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills – 73 ITR 634 (SC); Rajiv Tandan vs. DCIT – 164taxman 271 (Del.); and Schinder Electrical Industries – 171 taxman 177. His main submission was that without the evidence, the expenditure cannot be allowed. 115. Against this, ld. AR submitted that these are the expenditure which have been incurred in the past year, the details of each project is given at page 97…