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)

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/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…