CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

…v) pertaining to credit card expenses. In the impugned assessment years, the grievance of the assessee is against 25% disallowance made by the AO on similar expenses. 7.3 It would be apposite to refer here to the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein it is held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption is on the assessee. Also in Nund & Samont Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), it is held that it is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible. Further, in Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v.…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

…v. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (para 2), c. CIT v. Yawar Rashid [1996] 218 ITR 699 (MP) (para 2), d. CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [IT Reference No. 39 of 1998, dated 10-7-2017] (para 8), e. CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (para 8), f. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 10), g. CIT v. Max. India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 12) and h. CIT v. Gogineni Tobacco Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 970 (AP) i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 13) followed. j. CIT v. M…

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…essee failed to file vouchers/bills before the AO. The learned A/R of the appellant failed to file the relevant vouchers/bills before me during the appellate proceedings. In view of the above, relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. 256 ITR 701(AP) and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Ltd. 74 ITR 17 the disallowance of Rs.46,54,789/- made by the AO is confirmed.” 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming addition made by the AO towards adhoc disallowance of 50% of staff meeting…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 GN Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12th floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 PAN No. AACCG3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, AR Revenue by : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assess…

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

…le verdict in-as-much as all it furnishes in the set aside proceedings in evidence is affidavits from self and related parties. The onus to prove its return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (refer: CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)), which it has completely failed to. Reliance on case law; the matter being primarily factual, to be decided based on factual findings, is of little consequence. In fact, as regards the proposition of law, the Revenue has relied on case law, which has not been met by the assessee (refer para 2, pg. 4 of the assessment order). I, accordingly,…

Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…er held in the case ofM/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 of "guess worfc\ 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 TTR 439 and in t…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…er held in the case ofM/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 of "guess worfc\ 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 TTR 439 and in t…

Shree Global Tradefin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Global Tradefin Acit-32 Ltd.,35, Ashok Chambers, Ground Floor, Vs. Broach Street, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Devjiretanesy Marg, Road,Mumbai-400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacb2975J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. T.A. Khan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2017

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Global Tradefin ACIT-32 Ltd.,35, Ashok Chambers, Ground floor, Vs. Broach Street, AayakarBhavan, M.K. DevjiRetanesy Marg, Road,Mumbai-400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACB2975J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, AR Revenue by : Mr. T.A. Khan, DR Date of Hearing : 11/10/2017 Date of pronouncement : 29/12/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment ye…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Crest Animation Studios Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6278/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

…/s. 36(1)(iii), the assessee has to prove that money was borrowed by the assessee for the purposes of its own business on which interest has been paid. The A.O relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191(SC) and that the onus is on the assessee to prove that expenses have been incurred for the purposes of business of the assessee . Thus, the AO observed that effective rate of interest paid by the assessee was 22.75% , while the effective rate of interest recovered comes to merely 1.4% , which led to be additions to the tune of Rs. 1,59,66,007/- wh…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (Se) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount of "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 (Se) 86 ITR 439 and in t…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Aadhar Retailing Ltd, Navi Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1586/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-10(2) M/s. Aadhar Retailing Limited (now known as Aadhar Wholesale Trading and Distribution Room No.432/474, 4th Floor Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road C/o., Future Agrovet Ltd. Mumbai-400 0…