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.

ACIT Cir -4(2) (1), Thane vs. M/S. Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…d/2011 4. Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2004) (ITAT-Delhi) (88 ITD 95) 5. M/s K.V. Minerals, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 15.07.2013 (ITAT No. 1996/Hyd/2011) 6. Davinder Singh v ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ITAT, Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd 1951 AIR 108 (19 ITR 191) (SC) 8. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v/s CIT(1969) (73 ITR 634) (SC) 9. L.B. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd v/s CIT (19 CTR) 185: (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC) 10. CIT V. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (S.C) 11. CIT V/S Motor & General Stores Pvt. Ltd. 66 ITR 692 (S.C In the appellant's case, all commission agents confirmed having rendered…

Proma Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 is dismissed

ITA 1788/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…idence to substantiate the assessee’s claim that these 5 were business expenses and not payment made for legal and professional expenses for the purchase of factory premises. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision in the case of C IT vs Calcutta Agency Ltd 19 ITR 191 (SC) wherein the burden of proving the necessary facts pertaining to the claim of expenses is on the assessee. The assessee has failed to furnish evidence to prove that these were expenses for the purpose of business and we are of the opinion that the burden of proving the profits / loss of the assessee, is on the assessee. In the present case, as…

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…to prove that the purchases were genuine by producing the parties and related evidences The onus to prove the correctness and genuineness of any claim made by the assessee is the assessee itself as it is held in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Sales Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered r…

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…to prove that the purchases were genuine by producing the parties and related evidences The onus to prove the correctness and genuineness of any claim made by the assessee is the assessee itself as it is held in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Sales Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered r…

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…to prove that the purchases were genuine by producing the parties and related evidences The onus to prove the correctness and genuineness of any claim made by the assessee is the assessee itself as it is held in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Sales Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that while dealing with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim and not on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT VS Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered r…

Messung Systems Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2585/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2585/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

…its claim through documentary evidences. 5.6 The appellant has claimed agency commission allowable u/s. 37(1). The onus to prove the necessary facts is on the appellant as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. reported in 19 ITR 191(SC) and in case of Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 73 ITR 634(SC). Further, the Supreme Court in case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 293 (SC) wherein it has been held that where an assessee claims deduction the onus on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim…

Shri Sheo Bhagwan Goel, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Imcome Tax, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost

ITA 290/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 290/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Sheo Bhagwan Goel 121, Mapel Parthivi Pacific, Ge Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aikpg 3811 D .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, .……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 4(1), Raipur C.G) Appearances Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D. Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of The First Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appeals-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Vide Order Dt 16/05/2016, Which In Turn Sprung From The Assessment Order [For Short “Ao”] Dt 28/02/2015 Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer [For Short “Ld Ao”] U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri G. S. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…evant voucher and reasonable explanation when called for. 11. We can find the statutory force and support in aforestated view from the ration laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs Indian Molasses reported at 78 ITR 474, CIT Vs Calcutta Agency reported at 19 ITR 191 (SC) and I. H. Sugar Factory & oil Mils Pvt Ltd Vs CIT reported at 125 ITR, 293 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Lordship have held that, the primary onus of providing necessary facts and produce evidence in substantiating the claim in order to avail the deduction under Section 37(1) is on the assessee. 12. Once the assessee is absolved in aforesaid ter…

The Jt. CIT, Range-9, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Unique Metropoils, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3140/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…olour of genuineness to the bogus transaction. The ld. Assessing Officer I.T.A Nos. 3140/Ahd/2015 & 3093/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 7 DCIT vs. Unique Metropolis relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kolkata Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 and Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company 73 ITR 634 that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is entirely on the assessee. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Brijvasi Udhyog Ltd. by ITAT Agra Bench 31 taxmann.com 271 Agra…

M/S. Unique Metropolis, Ahmedabad vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-9, Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3093/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…olour of genuineness to the bogus transaction. The ld. Assessing Officer I.T.A Nos. 3140/Ahd/2015 & 3093/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 7 DCIT vs. Unique Metropolis relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kolkata Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 and Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Company 73 ITR 634 that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is entirely on the assessee. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer placed reliance on the case of ACIT vs. Brijvasi Udhyog Ltd. by ITAT Agra Bench 31 taxmann.com 271 Agra…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vimal Moulders India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 68

…No.128/Del/2018 expenses, the burden of proof is on him to establish that such expenditure was incurred whblly &nd exclusively for the purpose of his business. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case ofCIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC), Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT73 ITR 634 3 ITA No 2578/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008-09 (SC) and L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 125 ITR .293 (SC), and other decisions in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd, V/s, CIT [1958] 33 ITR 294 (Pat)Dey's Medical Stores 9 ITA no.2113/Ahd/2010 Mft. Pvt. Ltd, V/s. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 630…

ACIT 22 (1), Mumbai vs. Cyprian Anthony Mascarenhas, Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6791/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 37(1)

…een held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the even payment made by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd., (19 ITR 191) wherein it was held that the onus of proving necessary facts in order to avail the deduction u/s 37(1) is on the assessee and if the assessee fails to establish the facts necessary to support his claim for deduction u/s. 37(1), the claim for deduction of expenditure is not admissible. Thus, the onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness o…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…essee. In this regard, the following judicial decisions are taken on record. a. In order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s.37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (Supreme Court) 19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 b. Mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chn…

Uniliver India Export Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5413/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5413/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 1996-97) Unilever India Export Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly- Indexport Limited) Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(2), फनाभ/ Unilever House, B.D. Savant Mumbai -400 020 Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East) Vs. Mumbai 400 099 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci0991D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-2/It/598/2009-10 Dated 02.05.2016. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short Acit/ Ito/ Unilever India Export Limited; Ay 96-97 Ao), Osd 1(1), Mumbai For The A.Y. 1996-97 Vide Order Dated Nil Under Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, Dr
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 37(1)

…amination before coming to any conclusion. The assessee must prove by leading evidence that advantage was in the filed of revenue as the onus is on it in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Unilever India Export Limited; AY 96-97 the case of Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191. In the absence of any evidence, it is not possible for us to adjudicate the important issue arising from the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to place all materials/evidences before the tax authoritie…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)

…er held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount “guess work”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 has held that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 and in the…