CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Pvt Ltd.

74 ITR 17Supreme Court of India1969#2186 most cited

What is CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Pvt Ltd. authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to prove the veracity of claimed expenses. Income diverted by an overriding obligation before it is earned does not form part of the assessee's total income.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries · 74 ITR 17 · onus of proof · veracity of expenses · advertisement expenses · diversion of income · overriding obligation · application of income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 147Section 148Section 263Section 132Section 131(1A)Section 251

Issues it is cited on

place of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)legal expensesddtpreponderance of probabilityprincipal officershell companyroyalty incomesection 131(1a)colourable devicesection 16

Judgments citing CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Pvt Ltd.

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1008/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…ite law that onus lies on the assessee to prove that claim is allowable as deduction. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191)(SC). We may further add that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. Thus, following well settled principles of law, we uphold the disallowance. Grounds of appeal of the assessee-company are dismissed. 20. Ground Nos.18 to 20…

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

…ite law that onus lies on the assessee to prove that claim is allowable as deduction. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191)(SC). We may further add that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. Thus, following well settled principles of law, we uphold the disallowance. Grounds of appeal of the assessee-company are dismissed. 20. Ground Nos.18 to 20…

Abb India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

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

ITA 1124/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Abb India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Abb Ltd.) 21 Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway,No.26/01, Dr.Rajkumar Road Malleswaram West, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaaca 3834 B Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…was disallowed in earlier years and the amount of provision reversed during the year under consideration. The onus of proving the claim always lies with the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Ltd., (74 ITR 17)(SC) has unequivocally held that burden of providing that the claim is allowable lies on the assessee. Discharge of burden has to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up the book entries and paper work. In view of failure by the assessee-company to prove nexus between amount disallowed suo motu, provisions of section 40a(ia) and the amount…

Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 23/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…that the expenditure laid out were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Imperial IT(TP)A No.23/Bang/2012 Page 14 of 17 Chemical Industries (Ind.) Pvt. Ltd (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been aid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden had to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. The mere fact of payment of commissio…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…hi Mudaliar , 53 ITR 623(SC) g) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC) h) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Limited, 19 ITR 191(SC) i) CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Limited 256 ITR 701(AP HC) j) CIT v. Imperial Chemicals Industries India Private Limited 74 ITR 17 ITA 4512/Mum/2015 5 4.Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 07.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the A.O., the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the ld. CIT(A) , the assessee submitted that there are two additions made by the A.O. . The assessee submitted additional evidences which were filed before the ld. C…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Salora International Ltd

ITA/12/2003HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Sanat Kapoor, Ms Ananya
Section 260ASection 391Section 50

…ITA 12/2003 Page 1 of 28 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2016 + ITA 12/2003 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant versus M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel. For the Respondent : Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Sanat Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor and Mr Sumit Lal Chandani. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU J…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. 3M India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…iled to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure laid out were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Imperial Chemical Industries (Ind.) Pvt. Ltd (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been aid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden had to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. The mere fact of payment of commissio…

3M India Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…iled to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure laid out were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Imperial Chemical Industries (Ind.) Pvt. Ltd (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been aid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden had to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. The mere fact of payment of commissio…

Kamlesh S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Accounts Of The Assessee Are Audited One, Therefore, The Addition Is Purely On The Basis Guess Work. Our Attention Was Invited To Exhibit A (Pages 1 & 2) & Exhibit D Containing Ledger Of Transportation, Octroi & Staff Welfare Expenses.

…ils. The Sales Tax Department also published a list of parties, who are providing bogus bills without supply of goods/material. The ld. Assessing Officer relied upon the decision in CIT vs Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC) and Imperial Chemicals Indu. Ltd. 74 ITR 17 (SC) along with various other decision as mentioned in para 5.5 of the assessment order along with the decision in Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 269 ITR 263 (Raj.) by holding that onus is upon the assessee to prove that the expenses, if any, was incurred for business purposes. The ld. Assessing Officer also placed reliance upon th…

H & R Johnson India Ltd ( Now Know As A Division A of Prisim Cement Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 877/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi-DR
Section 115JSection 136Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

…ITR 465).The AO also referred to the cases of L.H Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (125ITR293), Chandravilas Hotel (164ITR102),Calcutta Agency Ltd.(19 ITR 191), Transport Corporation of India Ltd. (256 ITR701) and Imperial Chemical Industries(I) Pvt. Ltd.(74 ITR 17). The AO disallowed the commission payment amounting to Rs.35 lacs u/s.37(1) of the Act. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA.After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order,the FAA held that the assessee had merely stated that ALT had rendered the services, that there was no e…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4530/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…iled to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure let out were incurred wholly and exclusive for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden has to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. In view thereof, we see no infirmity…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…iled to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure let out were incurred wholly and exclusive for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden has to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. In view thereof, we see no infirmity…

The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1674/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…iled to discharge the burden of proving that the expenditure let out were incurred wholly and exclusive for the purpose of business. We may further add that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 has unequivocally held that the burden of proving that a particular expenditure had been laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business entirely lies on the assessee. The discharge of the burden has to be effective and meaningful and not to cover up by merely book entries and paper work. In view thereof, we see no infirmity…