CIT v. Asian Marketing

254 CTR 453High Court2012#17473 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Asian Marketing

ACE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 908/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleace Property Developers Vs. Acit 24(1) 207, Kartik Complex, R.No. 603, Piramal New Link Road, Andheri Chambers, Lalbaug, West, Mumbai. Parel, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…lowing case laws to this effect. (i) Eqbal Ahmed & Company vs. ITO (2005) 1 SOT 202 (Kol-Tribunal) (ii) Durga Das Devki Nandan vs. ITO (2011) 200 Taxman 318 (H.P.) (iii) ACIT vs. Suman Construction (2009) 121 TTJ 847 (Pune) (iv) CIT vs. Asian Marketing (2012) 254 CTR 453 (Raj.) (v) Medicare Investments Ltd. vs. JCIT , 14 ITD 34 (Del.) 2.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee computed the remuneration as per Section 40(b) of the Act and credited 50% each to both the partners. The AO did not dispute the fact that remuneration was paid to the p…

JRA & ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5571/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblejra & Associates Vs Acit B-15, Lower Ground Floor, Circle-37(1), Civic Centre Greater Kailash Enclave-Ii New Delhi New Delhi Aaafj4662K (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

…vs Vaish Associates (ITA 50/2014 order dated 11.08.2015 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court) • Vaish Associates vs ACIT (ITA 1382/Del/2012 order dated 05.07.2013 passed by Delhi Tribunal) • Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs ITO (342 ITR 17) • CIT vs Asian Marketing (254 CTR 453) • ACIT vs DCS International Trading (ITA 98 and 694/Del/2012 order dated 22.11.2013 passed by Delhi Tribunal) • ITO vs Pulimoottil Silk House (19 SOT 4) Cochin Tri. • Eqbal Ahmed & Co. vs ITO (1 SOT 202) Kolkata Tri. • ACIT vs Ravi Bros (3 SOT 533) Gauhati Tri. • ACIT vs Associated Engineers & Allied products (ITA 680/JP/2014 order dated 31.05.2…

GARG TRADING CO.,ROHTAK vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6865/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Garg Trading Co. , C/O- N.C. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, New Garg, Chartered Accountant, M.G. Delhi Road, Rohtak Gir/Pan : Aaffg5606F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 13/11/2015 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rohtak, For Assessment Year 2011-12, Raising Following Grounds: 1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Disallowance Of Rs. 169829/- Representing The Alleged Excess Salary Paid To The Partner By Invoking Clause (V) Of Section 40(B) Of The Act. 1.1 That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciated That The Salary Paid To The Partners Was In Terms Of Clause (9) Of The Deed Of Partnership Dated 12.04.2007 Which Had Been Allowed Consistently In Preceding & Succeeding Assessment Years And, Therefore, Disallowance Made Is Illegal, Invalid & Untenable. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That Additions Sustained Of Rs. 169829/- Be Deleted & Appeal Of The Appellant May Kindly Be Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 40

…the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is dated 04.11.2011 while the assessment order in the case of the assessee has been passed on 10.12.2010. He also relied before me on the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Marketing reported in 254 CTR 453, a copy of which is available at pages 56 & 57 of the paper book, and draw my attention that the similar clause for the payment of the remuneration was there as was in the case of the assessee. In any case, the interpretation of section 40B was debatable. I have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sood Brij &…

M/S. RANVIR SINGH & CO.,,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

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

ITA 3778/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 40BSection 40B(5)

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court is dated 04.11.2011 while the assessment order in the case of the assessee has been passed on 10.12.2010. He also relied before me on the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Marketing reported in 254 CTR 453, a copy of which is available at pages 56 & 57 of the paper book, and draw my attention that the similar clause for the payment of the remuneration was there as was in the case of the assessee. 4 ITA No.3777 & 3778/Del./2015 In any case, the interpretation of section 40B was debatable. I have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High…

M/S. RANVIR SINGH & CO.,,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

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

ITA 3777/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 40BSection 40B(5)

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court is dated 04.11.2011 while the assessment order in the case of the assessee has been passed on 10.12.2010. He also relied before me on the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Marketing reported in 254 CTR 453, a copy of which is available at pages 56 & 57 of the paper book, and draw my attention that the similar clause for the payment of the remuneration was there as was in the case of the assessee. 4 ITA No.3777 & 3778/Del./2015 In any case, the interpretation of section 40B was debatable. I have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High…

CIT v. Asian Marketing (254 CTR 453) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax