CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd.

DCIT, Chennai vs. Spero Foundations Pvt Ltd., Chennai

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

…he circumstances, highly suspect. It therefore cannot be said that the apparent is to be presumed, as is generally the case, as real. Also, the onus to prove its return, and claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venakataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The Assessing Officer (AO), on his part, may make any verification he deems proper, including collection of material in rebuttal of the assessee’s claims, duly confronting the same to the assessee. A number of surrounding circumstances need to be explained. To begin with, who placed the…

VI Micro Systems P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1172/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

…as for example where related to the assessee’s business, as specified in s. 35(1)(i), that could be allowed there-under. Also, the burden to prove its return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (refer: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venakataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)), and which the assessee has clearly not discharged. There is, as such, apparently nothing incorrect in the Revenue’s stand. At the same time, however, when the assessee’s audited accounts reflect the impugned expenditure as on a R&D facility, which has been further claimed u/s. 35(2AB), f…

VI Micro Systems P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1172/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

…as for example where related to the assessee’s business, as specified in s. 35(1)(i), that could be allowed there-under. Also, the burden to prove its return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (refer: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venakataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)), and which the assessee has clearly not discharged. There is, as such, apparently nothing incorrect in the Revenue’s stand. At the same time, however, when the assessee’s audited accounts reflect the impugned expenditure as on a R&D facility, which has been further claimed u/s. 35(2AB), f…

Noble Consolidated Glazings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

…ing revenue, i.e., the income accrued. The onus, therefore, is on the assessee, who is even otherwise obliged to prove its 11 Noble Consolidated Glazings Ltd. v. Dy.CIT return of income and claims preferred thereby (refer: CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venakataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)), to show that, notwithstanding its unqualified accounts, to the extent retained, income has not accrued. This onus remains completely un-discharged. There is no explanation by the assessee for the amount/s retained. The relevant agreements are also not on record for us to ascertain the sa…

Interpump Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Hosur

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

…y, is restored back to the file of the AO for fresh determination along these lines. The burden to prove its return, and the claims preferred thereby, is only on the assessee (CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 6 Interpump Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 19 ITR 191 (SC); CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)), so that the onus to state and present its case in the set aside proceedings shall be on the assessee. The Revenue (TPO) shall, at the same time, though at liberty to verify the materials furnished and relied upon by the assessee in these proceedings, as well as to raise questions in their…