ACIT v. Suman Construction

34 SOT 495Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#14603 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40(b)(v)Section 44AB

Judgments citing ACIT v. Suman Construction

DIVYA PROFILE TRADING,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 180/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.180/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Divya Profile Trading, Vs. Ito, Ward- 9(1), Pune. Gat No.77, Joytiba Nagar, Near Bhalekar Chowk, Talawade, Pune- 412114. Pan : Aanfd0876A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 02.12.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2022-23 Framed On 27.02.2024 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 3,31,667/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Fees Under Gst For Late Payment. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 4,11,821/- In Respect Of Income Tax Without Appreciating That No Deduction Of The Same Has Been Claimed By The Appellant. 3. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Rs 21,52,441/- In Respect Of Remuneration Paid To Partners.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

…hall not exceed the amount as mentioned in sub-clause (v) of Section 40 (b) of the Act. The relevant provisions has used the word authorised and not the word used quantify. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT v. Suman Construction 43 SOT 495 (sic): (2009) 34 SOT 495 (Pune- Trib), held that remuneration is to be deducted in case partnership deed authorizes the payment of salary. We have also considered the decisions which have been mentioned by the Id. CIT (A) in his order. We, therefore, feel that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the remuneration payable to the partners. Before parting with this appe…

NISARG ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…sessee-firm would result in double taxation; therefore disallowance in case of assessee was to be deleted [In favour of assessee]. Also refer ITAT Pune allowed salary to partners in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suman Construction [2009] 34 SOT 495 (Pune) on same principal like 81 taxmann.com 451. (Supra). Following above principal of double taxation in the case of assessee's appeal ITAT Mumbai "A: Bench decision in ITA no 908/Mum/2017 in the case of Ace Property Developers Vs ACIT 24(1) where in it is held that: "We cannot appreciate the basis for sustaining additions as assessee has alread…

M/S ABDUL GAFFAR HAZI HASSAN,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 289/RPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.289/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Abdul Gaffar Hazi Hassan, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Bukhari Service Station, Link Road Bilaspur(C.G.)-495001 Pan No. : Aajfa 2350 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 40

…nt of remuneration shall not exceed the amount as mentioned in sub-clause (v) of Section 40 (b) of the Act. The relevant provisions has used the word 'authorised' and not the word used 'quantify'. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Suman Construction 43 SOT 495 held that remuneration is to be deducted in case partnership deed authorizes the payment of salary. We have also considered the decisions which have been mentioned by the ld. CIT (A) in his order. We, therefore, feel that the ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the remuneration payable to the partners. Before parting with this appeal, we would l…

SHIV DURGA ENTERPRISES, ,NEW DEDLHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW

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

ITA 5353/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2014-15 Shiv Durga Enterprises, Acit, Circle- 47(1), 2618/19, Maruti Bhawan, New Delhi. Vs. Naya Bazar, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, DR
Section 40

…ly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and the ground raised by the assessee should be allowed. He relied on the following decisions :- (i) Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs. ITO, (2012) 342 ITR 17 (HP). (ii) ACIT vs. Suman Construction, [2009] 34 SOT 495. (iii) M/s. Osho Associates vs. ACIT (ITA-265/Agr/2011 dt. 23.11.2012). (iv) CIT vs. Asian Marketing, [2013] 213 Taxman 214 (Raj). 12. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the partnership deed in the instant case does not quantify nor laid down the procedure to…

ASST CIT CIR 3, THANE vs. SAGAR SAI ENTERPRISES, DOMBIVALI

ITA 5674/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme & Shri Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40

…hall not exceed the amount as mentioned in sub-clause (v) of Section 40 (b) of the Act. The relevant provisions has used the word authorised and not the word used quantify. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT v. Suman Construction 43 SOT 495 (sic): (2009) 34 SOT 495 (Pune- Trib), held that remuneration is to be deducted in case partnership deed authorizes the payment of salary. We have also considered the decisions which have been mentioned by the Id. CIT (A) in his order. We, therefore, feel that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the remuneration payable to the partners. Before parting with this appe…

M/S. S.C.PADHEE,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri N.L.Dash, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 40

…uneration having been laid down, the assessee firm is entitled to deduct the remuneration paid to the partners under s. 40(b)(v) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Suman Constructions (2009) 34 SOT 495 (Pune), wherein, it has been held that salary to partners cannot be disallowed only on the reason that the salary is not quantified in the partnership deed. 5. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee held that the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act only employ the term ‘authorise’ and not ‘quantify’ in respect o…

ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN vs. SAGAR SAI ENTERPRISES, DOMBIVALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7671/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhacit, Circle-3, M/S. Sagar Sai Enterprises, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Shop No. 6, Venkatesh Darshan, Murbad Road, Vs. Subhash Road, Vishnu Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421301. Dombivili (W), Mumbai-421201 Pan: Abffs2332B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv G. Brahme (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40

…hall not exceed the amount as mentioned in sub-clause (v) of Section 40 (b) of the Act. The relevant provisions has used the word authorised and not the word used quantify. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT v. Suman Construction 43 SOT 495 (sic): (2009) 34 SOT 495 (Pune- Trib), held that remuneration is to be deducted in case partnership deed authorizes the payment of salary. We have also considered the decisions which have been mentioned by the Id. CIT (A) in his order. We, therefore, feel that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the remuneration payable to the partners. Before parting with this appe…

ACIT v. Suman Construction (34 SOT 495) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax