How many judgments cite CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 153A, Section 148, Section 263, Section 132.

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 367,514 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 147 Section 153A Section 148 Section 263 Section 132 Section 131(1A)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

place of effective management section 6(3)section 127(1)legal expenses royalty income ddt preponderance of probability colourable device principal officer shell company section 131(1a)business expediency

Judgments citing CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.

M/S Tirupati Carbons & Chemicals Pvt Ltd, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-3, Ranchi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 55/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S Tirupati Carbons & Chemicals Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Ranchi Pvt. Ltd. 3P, Shree Gopal Complex, Court Road, Ranchi-834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct5856A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

…see is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto, and not on the view which he might take of his rights. The position is well-settled by the judgments of the Apex Court in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) (P) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 17.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of t…

M/S Geomin Industries Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…rpose has been stated. Ad hoc disallowance on presumptive basis could not hold in law. We could not agree more. No doubt, the primary burden to prove its’ return of income and the claims preferred thereby is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). However, neither the assessment nor the appellate order reflects any inquiry into facts and, resultantly, a substantiation of the charge – which could only be based on a finding/s of facts – on the basis of which the disallowance stands made and confirmed. Again, a claim qua personal purp…

Contour Entertainment Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2416/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2416/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Contour Entertainment Inc. बिधम/ Dcit(It) 2(1)(1) C/O Rashmi Modi & Co. Air Building, Mumbai. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 7, Vallabhji Kanji Building, 173/175, Princess Street, Opp. Corporation Bank, Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc3711D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri V. Sreekar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.01.2017 Passed To Pursuant Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp' For Short) U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal As Read: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)

Section 144Section 144C(13)

…espect of these expenses. In order to claim that an expenditure falls within the ambit of sec. 37(1) of the I. T. Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts is on the assesse as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC) and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CII 73 ITR 634 (SC). ITA. NO.2416/M/2017 A.Y.2013-14 3.2.13 In yet another case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293(SC), it was held that where an assessee claims a deduction, the onus is on him to prove al material facts on record to substantiate his claim. Hon'ble Gujar…

M/S Kamal Trading Company, Raichur vs. CIT, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 932/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranm/S Kamal Trading Company, Plot No.10, Shop No.80, Rajendra Gunj, Raichur, Pan No.Aagfk0247F Appellant Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.102, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Sedam Rod, Kalaburagi Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri .Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 39(1)Section 43(3)Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…no record which shows that the assessee has put the fact before the AO during the assessment proceedings that the return of income has been filed belatedly. The assessee has failed to do so. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ca of CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Limited (SC) 19 ITR 191., CIT Vs R.Venkataswamy Naidu (SC) 29 ITR 529, and Gopi Ram Lila Vs CIT(Raj.) 225 ITR 320 has held that to claim any exemption/deduction, duty of assessee to substantiate it with records and evidences. Moreover, the AO has no discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the return of income so as to allow deduction u/s 80IA r.w.80AC of the A…

DCIT-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/ Travel Corporation (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 1750/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Travel Corporation (India) Tax – 3(3)(2), Ltd., Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, 1St Floor, Chandermukhi Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact6856C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik (Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Urvi Mehta (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2020

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik (DR)

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…umentary evidences in support of its claim during the assessment proceedings as well Assessment Year: 2011-12 during the appellate proceedings and the hence the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. ( 19 ITR 191) wherein it is held that the onus of proving necessary facts in order to avail the deduction u/s 37 (1) is on the assessee, is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case under consideration.? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in restricting the disallowance made in respe…

Vayudoot Security Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 8089/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17 Vayudoot Security Services Private Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-26(1), 2209, Kucha Alam Chand, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacv4575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th July, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, They All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,89,71,528/- Out Of ‘Salaries, Wages & Bonus’ & Rs.2,65,48,736/- Out Of ‘Gift & Business Promotion Expenses.’

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

…im made by the AR of the appellant. But the appellant failed to do so. The onus is on the appellant to prove its claim bonafide and genuine and as has been held by various courts and tribunals. It has been held in the case of CIT vs Calcutta Agency Ltd (1951) 19 ITR 191 by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Guhawati in the case of Assam Pesticides and Agro Chemical vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846 held that it cannot be said that even if the taxpayer does n…

Harshu Constructions Private Limited, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 199/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15 Harshu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur- 482002 Jabalpur [Pan: Aabch 9808B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 37(1)

…butted findings. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Our first observation in the matter is that the primary onus to prove its’ return, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee [CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT vs. R. Venktaswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)]. This aspect is in fact not disputed. It is toward discharge of this obligation on the assessee that it furnishes its’ books of account along with the relevant vouchers in substantiation of its’ claims, which were, upon examination by the AO, found deficient in-so-far as the same related t…

J.P Tobaco Producta Pvt. Ltd vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - Sagar

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

ITA 186/JAB/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Pathariya Phatak, Damoh Tax, [Pan:Aaacj 7141G] Circle- Sagar (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 80Section 80I

…is very old. The same is therefore to be discounted even as the plea is even otherwise not maintainable as the primary burden to prove its’ return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee [see, inter alia, CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT vs. R. Venktaswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)]. Why, the assessee itself is responsible for the delay, having I.T.A. No.186/JAB/2016 Assessment year:2003-04 5 been caused on account of the non-evidencing of its’ claim/s by it. Further on, what was the relevant scheme/s? There is nothing to exhibit the same. Are they a regular part of…

The West Bengal State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 172/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 37

…. Therefore order of the CIT(A) should be sustained. The Id. DR also placed reliance ITA No.172/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 The W.B.S.Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kol. Page 4 on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Calcutta Agencies 19 ITR 191 (SC). 9. We have perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision on the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court in a reference u/s 66(1) of the I.T. Act, 1962 and was held to be advisory in nature. The court held that on facts the decision of t…

M/S. Unitech Infra- Con Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6679/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250

…. Wimco Seedings Ltd. Vs. DCIT. 107 ITD 267 (Del) 2. Impulse (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 22 SOT 368(Del). 3. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. DCIT, 92 ITD 119 (Del). 4. CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. 326 ITR 1 (SC). 5. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [195] 19 ITR 191. 6. Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 361. 7. The Printers House Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 227/2009 dated 16.04.2009. 8. CIT vs. Hindustan Tin Works Limited in ITA No. 55/2009 dated 13.02.2009. 9. Design Co. Ltd. (presently known as PBC Ventures Ltd.) in ITA No. 803/2008 dated 15.07.2008. 10. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd in ITA No.…

M/S. B U Bhandari Tempo, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 5

…enditure u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the same is wholly & exclusively related to the business of the assessee. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191). 3.2.2 In the case of L. H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (125 ITR 293) (SC), it has been held that when an assessee claims a deduction the onus is on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. 3.3.3 In the written submission filed, Ld. Counsel of the appellant has not been able to justify the claim of vari…

Shri Sant Sadhu Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 763/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 763/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 763/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sant Sadhu Singh, vs. Income Tax Officer, Chella Sant Hari Singh, Ward-4, Hoshiarpur VPO Kaharpur, Hoshiarpur [PAN: ATOPS 3154J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.07.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee-individual, agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar (…

M/S Steel Kraft India, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 615/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…i.e., qua the services rendered. There is no improvement in the assessee’s case before the Tribunal. It needs to be appreciated that the primary burden to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). It is only when the assessee furnishes some evidence in support of his claim that the same could be subject to verification or investigation by the Revenue authorities. The payee is stated, without showing, of having 15 years experience in the trade. He is in fact a working partner in ano…

Mesres Surya Motors, Abohar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 91/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 90 & 91/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…nal advocating the same. The onus to exhibit the said application, where claimed for business purpose, though, is on the assessee in-as- much as the burden to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby is only on him (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). 5.3 This brings us to the last limb of the assessee’s case, i.e., that it has sufficient interest-free capital, so that no disallowance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, shall arise. The same is clearly a matter of fact. The manner in which the adequacy or otherwise of a conc…

Mesers Surya Motors, Abohar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 90/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 90 & 91/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

Sh. Lalit Deewan, Jammu vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Jammu

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

ITA 453/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. C J S Nanda (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalit Dewan, vs. Dy. CIT, 9, Canal Road, Jammu Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, [PAN: ABMPD 9066G] Panama Chowk, Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. C J S Nanda (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30.05.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

M/S Express Confectioners Pvt Ltd, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 73/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.73/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Express Confectioners Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ltd., C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 4056 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Jalan & Rajiv Ranjan, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Jharkhand, Dated 09.02.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10066/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That, The Ld. Cit(A) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs. 27,422/- Under The Head 'Club Subscription Expenses', Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Expense Was Incurred In 'Order To Entertain The Guests At A Comparatively Cheaper Rate. 2. For That, The Ld. Cit(A) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.2,30,355/- On Account Of 'Loss On Sale Of Fixed Assets'.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jalan & Rajiv Ranjan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)

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

…necessary evidence in this regard. Therefore, if the assessee fails to place sufficient materials, he is not entitled to claim allowance under section 37(1). The position is well-settled by the judgments of the Apex Court in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 17. Therefore, if the assessee fails to place sufficient materials, he is not entitled to claim allowance under section 37(l). In CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel [1987] 164 FUR 102 1 (Guj.) it is held that if the expenditure is doubted by the assessing authority, it is the duty of the a…

Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 597/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…nuineness of the stated cash payments. Per contra, whether the assessee has established the said payments in-as-much as the burden to prove his return and the claims preferred thereby is only on him (CIT 6 Gurjeet Singh v. ITO v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). 4.3 The assessee has not rebutted any of the observations by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, reproduced supra, or otherwise shown them to be not relevant. The primary facts of the case are, it needs to be appreciated, only in the knowledge of the assessee, so that where he is una…

Mitesh Ilesh Gadhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 354/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodshri Mitesh Ilesh Gadhia Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 201, Vyapar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor Room No. 1918 368/270 Narshi Natha Street Vs. Air India Building Masjid Bunder (W) Nariman Point Mumbai 400009 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aegpg2818A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jang Pangi

Section 143(3)

…assessee. He observed that the assessee has failed to furnish inward- outward register and also did not furnish proof for delivery of materials. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd (19 ITR 191), the AO held that the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all expenses. He further held that payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish genuineness of the purchases as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (2007) (288 ITR 10). The AO also observed that the real test wi…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-3(2)(2), M/S Premier Ltd R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, 58, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai -21 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dadia &

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…ither the A.O. nor the learned CIT(A) has done proper analysis of the above statement of Shri Doshi. The assessee has also failed to file ,the complete details before the A.G. to substantiate the statement of Shri Doshi. In CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee to make a claim is on the assessee. The same ratio has been reiterated in Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC). The burden of proof is limited, to primary or initial onus. One such primary onus is discharged, such burden shift…