Ashok Surana v. CIT

384 ITR 267High Court2016#17807 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194J Section 250 Section 269T Section 271D

Judgments citing Ashok Surana v. CIT

M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 106/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2015-16 M/s Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow PAN: AAQCS5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing: 20.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This i…

Airovient Fans & Systems Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 638/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133(6)Section 194Section 194CSection 37(1)

…is regard to show that the burden of proof on the assessee regarding proving expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act has limits and cannot be mainly disallowed on the grounds adopted by the AO. The two cases are as follows: a) Ashok Surana vs. CIT reported in [2016] 384 ITR 267 (Calcutta) the head note of which is extracted as under: “Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Burden of proof) - Assessment year 2001-02 - When appropriate evidence has been adduced, it is not in power of Assessing Officer to arbitrarily disallow any item of expenditure on ground that sums are not v…

Sri Suresh Khatri, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 781/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 200Section 40

…essing Officer has nowhere pointed out any specific discrepancy in the books of account nor he has rejected the same. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer cannot make ad hoc disallowance. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashok Surana vs. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 267 (Cal) has held as under: “The assessee was an individual engaged in the business of producing television serials and had offices at Calcutta, Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai. For the assessment year 2001- 02, the assessee had shown to have incurred expenses on account of telephone. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20 per cent. of the expenditure on…

M/S. Premier Car Sales Limited, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range-V, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 449/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 80G

…ion, the Assessing Officer cannot make ad hoc I.T.A. No.449 & 450/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2012-13 & 13-14 4 disallowance specifically in view of the case laws relied on by Learned A. R. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashok Surana vs. CIT [2016] 384 ITR 267 (Cal) has held as under: “The assessee was an individual engaged in the business of producing television serials and had offices at Calcutta, Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee had shown to have incurred expenses on account of telephone. The Assessing Officer disallowed 20 per cent. of the expenditure on th…

ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata vs. Sri Rajendra Sethia, Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1748/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit, Circle-40, 2Nd V/S. Sri Rajendra Sethia Floor, 3, Govt. Place 67/28, Strand Road, Posta, (W), Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700006 [Pan No.Aixps 9803 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.L. Kochar, Advocate & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate 29-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arise From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.04.2017, Passed In Case No.10038/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Cir.40/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Vehicle Maintenance Expenses Involving The Sum In Issue Of ₹ 1,05,69,790/- @ 10% Of The Total Claim Of ₹10,56,97,905/-. Relevant Lower Appellate Discussion Qua The Instant Issue Reads As Follows:- “4. Ground No.7 Is Against The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Rs.1,05,69,790/-.

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

…counts. The appellant submits that these ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure which are duly recorded in accounts and details are available cannot be made. A reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No.448 of 2007 reported in 384 ITR 267 in the case of Ashok Surana vs. CIT is invited It is not the case of the A.O that the appellant was unable to adduce satisfactory evidences that the expenses were incurred for the purpose of business. As a matter of fact, the A.O has himself admitted that such expenses are viable in the transport business which is carried on by the appellant. The…