CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.

19 ITR 191Supreme Court of India1951#597 most cited

What is CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. authority for?

The assessee bears the burden of proving necessary facts to claim deductions. If the assessee fails to establish these facts, the deduction is not admissible.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. · Section 37(1) · onus of proof · deduction · admissibility of claim · business expenditure · burden of proof on assessee · legal expenses · business expediency

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 148Section 263Section 132Section 131(1A)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)legal expensesroyalty incomeddtpreponderance of probabilitycolourable deviceprincipal officershell companysection 131(1a)business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT, Circle Ingtl. Txan, Kerala

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 873/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…by law obliged to gather materials and confront them to the assessee before making assessment, is u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The burden to prove his return of income, including the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The objection to adoption of a higher net profit rate of 5% (of sales) for AY 2019-20, as against at 2% for the preceding years, apparently appealing, is fo…

Kandathil Jewellers, Kerala vs. DCIT International Taxation Circle, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 872/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Jyothison J., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 148(1)Section 44A

…by law obliged to gather materials and confront them to the assessee before making assessment, is u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The burden to prove his return of income, including the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The objection to adoption of a higher net profit rate of 5% (of sales) for AY 2019-20, as against at 2% for the preceding years, apparently appealing, is fo…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…s is precisely what the assessee is required to prove. The primary burden to prove his return, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who is even otherwise, i.e., on facts, in the intimate know of his affairs (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC);and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). And which remains un-discharged in the instant case. It is only thereafter that the onus shall, where the sale rates are still doubted by the Revenue, shift thereto.…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…of any previous year. Therefore, no deduction is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 61. g) The onus to prove any claim made by the assessee is on the assessee himself as is held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s Calcutta Sales Agency P Ltd (19 ITR 191). The assessee has not discharged his primary onus. If the object of this loan was for the purpose of making Investment then the irrecoverability is certainly not allowable being a capital expenditure. Moreover, the assessee has not established by leading the necessary evidence in the assessment proceedings that the afore mentioned payment/advance…

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…of any previous year. Therefore, no deduction is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 61. g) The onus to prove any claim made by the assessee is on the assessee himself as is held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s Calcutta Sales Agency P Ltd (19 ITR 191). The assessee has not discharged his primary onus. If the object of this loan was for the purpose of making Investment then the irrecoverability is certainly not allowable being a capital expenditure. Moreover, the assessee has not established by leading the necessary evidence in the assessment proceedings that the afore mentioned payment/advance…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…f any previous year. Therefore, no deduction is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 61. g) The onus to prove any claim made by the assessee is on the assessee himself as is held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s Calcutta Sales Agency P Ltd (19 ITR 191). The assessee has not discharged his primary onus. If the object of this loan was for the purpose of making Investment then the irrecoverability is certainly not allowable being a capital expenditure. Moreover, the assessee has not established by leading the necessary evidence in the assessment proceedings that the afore mentioned payment/advanc…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. N Ramasamy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)

…he burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of expenditure as well as that the expenditure has been incurred for business purposes. 5.4. Having regard to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) to the effect that the burden of proving that an amount contended to be an expenditure, falls under section 37 (1), is on the assessee’’. 15. Brief facts of the case are that assessee claimed expenditure under the following heads:- 1. Boarding and Lodging Rs.2,63,518/- 2. Commission paid Rs.15,00,000/- 3. Office building maintenance Rs.11,63,000…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. N Ramasamy, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 127/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.127 & 128/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. N. Ramasamy, Income Tax, No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Central Circle 2(2), Mahaingapuram, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Adupr 8003P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023. घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)

…he burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of expenditure as well as that the expenditure has been incurred for business purposes. 5.4. Having regard to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) to the effect that the burden of proving that an amount contended to be an expenditure, falls under section 37 (1), is on the assessee’’. 15. Brief facts of the case are that assessee claimed expenditure under the following heads:- 1. Boarding and Lodging Rs.2,63,518/- 2. Commission paid Rs.15,00,000/- 3. Office building maintenance Rs.11,63,000…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…lieve income having escaped assessment. This reason, clearly, is that the primary burden to prove it’s return of income, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who only is in the intimate know of his affairs. (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). There can again be no quarrel on the proposition that the assessee can furnish only what is available with it, as surely law cannot impose an impossible burden. Page 10 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12)…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…lieve income having escaped assessment. This reason, clearly, is that the primary burden to prove it’s return of income, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who only is in the intimate know of his affairs. (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC). There can again be no quarrel on the proposition that the assessee can furnish only what is available with it, as surely law cannot impose an impossible burden. Page 10 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12)…

Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT- Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

ITA 4841/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…ct, 1961. It is the first and foremost liability of assessee to prove that the expenditure incurred by him qualifies the necessary test of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I find support in my view from the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus of providing necessary facts in order to avail the deduction under section 37(1) is on the assessee. If, therefore, the assessee fails to establish the facts necessary to support his claim for deduction under section 37(1), the claim for deduction of expenditure is not admissible. The…

M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

…nt Payment 400000 1004599 1004599 15.12.2008 Payment Payment 1004599 0 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the deduction or allowance is always on assessee.…

ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

…nt Payment 400000 1004599 1004599 15.12.2008 Payment Payment 1004599 0 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s 16. As per decisions of Hon. Supreme Court's in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 19. and that in CIT v/s SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the SmtIndiramaniJatia 35 IT 298, burden of proof regarding the deduction or allowance is always on assessee.…

Cpi Gera Realty India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(3), Pune

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 65/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh SonimindeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…omputing the taxable income becomes inherent and which cannot be faulted with in view of ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in ‘CIT Vs Calcutta Agency’ reported at 19 ITR 191 (SC) and ‘CIT Vs Indian Molasses’ reported at 78 ITR 474 (SC), and “I. H. Sugar Factory & oil Mils Pvt Ltd Vs CIT” reported at 125 ITR, 293 (SC). 9. In the light of aforestated discussion and in the absence of any deprecative material brought to our notice, we countenance the action of both the tax authorities below being faultless. 2. Resultant…

Cpi Gera Realty India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(3), Pune

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 64/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh SonimindeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…omputing the taxable income becomes inherent and which cannot be faulted with in view of ITAT-Pune Page 9 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in ‘CIT Vs Calcutta Agency’ reported at 19 ITR 191 (SC) and ‘CIT Vs Indian Molasses’ reported at 78 ITR 474 (SC), and “I. H. Sugar Factory & oil Mils Pvt Ltd Vs CIT” reported at 125 ITR, 293 (SC). 9. In the light of aforestated discussion and in the absence of any deprecative material brought to our notice, we countenance the action of both the tax authorities below being faultless. 2. Resultant…

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore – 452 010. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Computer Science…

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore – 452 010. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Computer Science…

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

…ITA Nos.179/Ind/2016, 292/Ind/2017, 319/Ind/2018 & SA No.46/Ind/2021 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 1 of 29 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore – 452 010. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Computer Science…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 36/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Dcit, Corporate Circle Corporate Circle - Vs. Grid Corporation Of O Grid Corporation Of Orissa 1(1), Bhubaneswar. 1(1), Bhubaneswar. Ltd., Ltd., Janapath, Janapath, Bhubanesw Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, Ars Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

…d ambit of the words 'wholly and exclusively' occurring in section 37(1), the test of which has to be satisfied. The primary onus to prove its return, and thus the claim,/s preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (refer: CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). What, therefore, the assessee is being called upon to satisfy is the condition of section 37(1). Any other reading of the law would, besides defeating its clear mandate per section 37(1), make the use of the words 'wholly and exclusively' therein otiose. An assessee could book any sum of expenditure, and which may have serious implication o…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 346/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Dcit, Corporate Circle Corporate Circle - Vs. Grid Corporation Of O Grid Corporation Of Orissa 1(1), Bhubaneswar. 1(1), Bhubaneswar. Ltd., Ltd., Janapath, Janapath, Bhubanesw Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, Ars Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P. Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

…d ambit of the words 'wholly and exclusively' occurring in section 37(1), the test of which has to be satisfied. The primary onus to prove its return, and thus the claim,/s preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (refer: CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). What, therefore, the assessee is being called upon to satisfy is the condition of section 37(1). Any other reading of the law would, besides defeating its clear mandate per section 37(1), make the use of the words 'wholly and exclusively' therein otiose. An assessee could book any sum of expenditure, and which may have serious implication o…