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 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.

Maytas-Ctr (Jv), Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the SA is dismissed

ITA 630/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…to establish the genuineness of the transactions. 2.4 In view of the above observations and following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. 3 I.T.A. No. 630/Hyd/18 & SA No. 106/Hyd/18 Maytas – CTR (JV), Hyd. Calcutta Agency Ltd., 19 ITR 191, the AO made the addition of Rs. 3,90,05,332/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal by holding that the assessee had grossly failed to fulfil the requirement of law in s…

Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4840/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…ction from Indian operations. It is settled law that unless the assessee is able to substantiate its claim the deduction cannot be allowed. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary facts in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption u/s 10(2)(xv) was on the assessee but the necessary facts had not been established by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings and the High Court was in error in applying the principles of Mitchell's case on the assumpti…

Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…ction from Indian operations. It is settled law that unless the assessee is able to substantiate its claim the deduction cannot be allowed. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary facts in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption u/s 10(2)(xv) was on the assessee but the necessary facts had not been established by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings and the High Court was in error in applying the principles of Mitchell's case on the assumpti…

M/S. Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3640/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…ction from Indian operations. It is settled law that unless the assessee is able to substantiate its claim the deduction cannot be allowed. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary facts in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption u/s 10(2)(xv) was on the assessee but the necessary facts had not been established by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings and the High Court was in error in applying the principles of Mitchell's case on the assumpti…

M/S. Bg International Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 245/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(4)

…ction from Indian operations. It is settled law that unless the assessee is able to substantiate its claim the deduction cannot be allowed. In this regard we may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary facts in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption u/s 10(2)(xv) was on the assessee but the necessary facts had not been established by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings and the High Court was in error in applying the principles of Mitchell's case on the assumpti…

Smt. Avtar Kaur, Jalandhar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - II, Jalandhar

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

ITA 216/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 216/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Kalra (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Das (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ell as the absence of any reliable evidence as to sale; the cash sale bill/s being only a self generated document. The burden to prove its’ return, and the claims preferred thereby, it may be appreciated, is on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). Where, therefore, the loss as claimed is not reasonably proved, a disallowance in its respect shall ensue irrespective of whether substantial doubts have been raised qua the reliability of the assessee’s accounts in general. In fact, no such doubts have indeed been raised. The ‘rejection’…

Sandeep Marwah vs. Assistant CIT

ITA/1249/2018HC Delhi12 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)

…t, 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 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 admissibl…

Sandeep Marwah vs. Assistant CIT

ITA/1250/2018HC Delhi12 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)

…t, 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 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 admissibl…

Shri Om Parkash Legal Heiar Smt Pushpa Verma, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 756/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 756/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

…is inexplicable. All these facts are in the special knowledge of the assessee, who is even otherwise obliged by law to prove his return, including the books of account on which it is based, and the claims preferred thereby (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). An absence of it leading evidence, which it has or is expected to be in possession of, or otherwise accessible to it, would lead to an adverse inference. This is well-settle. Apart from being part of the evidence law, stands clarified by the Hon’ble Courts as in Union of India v. Rai Deb…

The Income-Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh Jagjit Singh S/O. Sh. Amrik Singh, Amritsar

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

ITA 363/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 363/(Asr)/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)
Section 143(3)

…imary onus to lead which is on the assessee. No fetters are placed on either side, even as the burden to prove his return, and the claims preferred thereby, is on the assessee, who in the present case is in receipt of money [CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)]. The AO shall adjudicate afresh, issuing definite findings of fact, in accordance with law, and after allowing the assessee proper opportunity to state his case. The matter, accordingly, setting aside the impugned order, is restored to the file of the AO for the purpose. 13 ITO v. Jagji…

Smt. Harvinder Kaur, Kapurthala vs. A.C.I.T, Central Circle-I, Jalandhar

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

ITA 328/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harvinder Kaur, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income 35, Gopal Park, Kapurthala Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar [PAN: AGYPK 8199A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 29.10.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of I…

Neysa Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2773/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2773/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Neysa Jewellery Ltd. Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1) Gems & Jewellery Complex- Iii, G-36 Seepz, Andheri Vs. (East) Mumbai-400 096 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaecs1821N अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Dg Pansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri DG Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 57

…rest earned on FDs. Even before me, the AR has submitted the same reply as before the A.O. and has failed to prove the direct nexus of expenditure incurred for earning interest income. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Cowl in the case of Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191, the 5 onus is always on the assessee to prove the nexus. But in the present case, the AR has failed to submit any clinching evidence to prove the direct nexus. The decisions relied on by the AR are not helpful to the assessee because in the present case, the assessee has failed to prove nexus otherwise the other Hon’ble Tribunal has held that in…

The West Bengal State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-56, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1906/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Final Disposal Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Mondal, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Mukherjee, Addl.CIT, ld.DR
Section 37Section 66(1)

…he assessee. " 8. The DR pointed out that no evidence whatsoever was filed before the AO. Therefore order of the CIT(A) should be sustained. The Id. DR also placed reliance 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 IT. Act, 1962 and was held to be advisory in nature. The court held that on facts the decision of t…

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

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2056/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The West Bengal State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-40, Kolkata . [Pan: Aaaat 7072 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.C. Mondal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharyya, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…the assessee.” 8. The DR pointed out that no evidence whatsoever was filed before the AO. Therefore order of the CIT(A) should be sustained. The ld. DR also placed reliance 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 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 o…

Prajwal Arvind Kamath, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3569/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Prajwal Arvind Dy. Commissioner Of Kamath, 2004, Fiona, Income Tax Circle-3, Vs. Hiranandani Estate Thane. Ghodbunder Road, Patlipada Thane-400607. Pan No. Aiupk5845K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…at where an assessee sets up a claim for a particular deduction in the computation of his income, but is unable to establish necessary facts in this regard, the Department would be justified in disallowing the claim. Also in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), it was held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption was on the assessee. Also in Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT it has been held that it is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible. The burden of proof is limited to primary or initial onus. I…

Yami Associates, Rajnandgaon vs. I.T.O.-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Yami Associates, The Income Tax Officer-I, Yalsco Carrier Building, F.C.I. Road, Near Raipur Naka, Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vs. Pan: Aaafy7073P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain (DR)
Section 143

…of proving necessary facts in order to claim deduction is on assessee and burden is on him to prove that the expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as has been held in plethora of cases like CIT Vs. Kolkata Agencies Limited 19 ITR 191 (SC), Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC), Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau). 227 ITR 846, Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58. In case expenses are not supported by proper bills and vouchers, reasonable addition can be made out of partial disallowance of expenses, though books of accounts are…

Kulin Kumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the same. Resultantly, this ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1414/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1414 & 1415/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 44ASection 64(1)(ii)

…ture falls within the ambit of section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts is on the assessee as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 9 I.T.A. No. 1414, 1415 & 1189/Mum/2015 Kulin Kumar Shah versus Calcutta agency Ltd 19 ITR 191(SC) and Laxmi Ratan cotton Mills Co Ltd versus CIT 73 ITR 634(SC). After considering the facts as well as legal position in the present case, we are also of the view that assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus by producing any document in support of its claim regarding paying of commission to these two parties. The Ld. AR also could n…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Darshan Kumar Mahajan, Pathankot

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

ITA 566/ASR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 566(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pan: Adjpm7623B

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D. R.)For Respondent: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…to this factual verification, we approve the assesee’s claim, i.e., in principle. The burden to prove its’ return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (CIT v. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). The Assessing Officer shall, accordingly, adjudicate the matter, issuing definite findings of fact, on the basis of the material on record, and after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its’ case. We decide accordingly. 7. Ground 2 by the Revenue is in respect of a disallowance at Rs.94,000/-, being 1/7th of the…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-6(1)(2), M/S Aristo Reality R. No. 508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Development Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 601, Symphony Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacl0593J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia, DR
Section 143

…h the Director makes foreign travel every year. M/s Aristo Reality 3 As the assessee failed to file documentary evidence in support of its expenses for business purposes in the foreign trips performed, the AO relying on the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191, CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. 256 ITR 701 and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. 74 ITR 17 disallowed the above sum of Rs.29,91,772/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), following the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the AY 2009-…

Sun Minerals, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessees' are dismissed

ITA 138/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Sun Minerals Vs D.C.I.T., Circle 6 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Abgfs5262D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…ing such payments, we are inclined to disallow the same. Page 3 of 5 ITA No 138 of 2016 Sun Minerals Hyderabad. 11. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Davinder Singh v. ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ASR), CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) (SC), Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (73 ITR 634) (SC) and L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR) (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC). 12. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (88 ITD 95) held as under; "51. Examining this matter from a…