CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd.

310 ITR 306High Court2009#986 most cited

What is CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

No tax evasion occurs when a company pays higher expenditure to a sister concern if the sister concern also pays taxes at a higher rate. This principle applies to disallowances under section 40A(2)(b) when it can be shown that the related entity is not benefiting from a lower tax rate.

109

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. · 310 ITR 306 · section 40A(2)(b) · section 40A(2) · business expediency · tax evasion · sister concern · higher expenditure · higher tax rate

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(2)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 8DSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)annual letting valueannual valuesection 40abusiness expediencyblock of assetssection 40mercantile system of accountingsection 36(1)(iii)section 115jdisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd.

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4322/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…r, the learned AR, amongst 20 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited other arguments, had placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Indo Saudi services (Travel)(P) Ltd. (2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bombay) (copy of the said decision was already furnished during the course of hearing) wherein it was held that, there is no evasion of taxes by alleged payment of higher expenditure to its sister concern since the sister concern was also paying tax at higher rate which was evident from copies of assessment order of sister concern. To substantia…

Raymond Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2218/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleraymond Limited V. The Addl. Cit– 2(3) New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 287/Mum/2017 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2218/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08)] The Addl. Cit– 2(3) V. Raymond Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road New Hind House Mumbai - 400020 Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent M/S. Raymond Limited V. The Dcit – Osd- 2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narottam Morarjee Marg Mumbai – 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

…r, the learned AR, amongst 20 ITA No. 4322/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) C.O. NO. 287& 288/MUM/2017 M/s. Raymond Limited other arguments, had placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Indo Saudi services (Travel)(P) Ltd. (2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bombay) (copy of the said decision was already furnished during the course of hearing) wherein it was held that, there is no evasion of taxes by alleged payment of higher expenditure to its sister concern since the sister concern was also paying tax at higher rate which was evident from copies of assessment order of sister concern. To substantia…

Kansara Popatlal Tribhuvan Metal Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 9 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1057/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…to demonstrate that payments made by assessee were excessive/unreasonable and the fact that payees were also assessed to tax at same rate of tax, Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly deleted addition. In the case of CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd 310 ITR 306 (Bombay)[2008], the Bombay High Court held that where revenue was not in a position to point out how assessee evaded payment of tax by alleged payment of higher commission to its sister concern, since sister concern was also paying tax at higher rate, disallowance of alleged excess commission paid to sister concern was not justified. In view of t…

ITO 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Niche Health Options P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1373/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…b) of the IT act and pleaded that the addition made has to be deleted. The learned AR in the written submissions has also referred to following case laws support of the arguments put forth by him. 1. CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P Ltd. (Bom-HC) (2009) 310 ITR 306 2. CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. P Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 102 (Bom-HC) 3. Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. Mumbai & Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (MUMBAI - ITAT) (2016) 44 ITR (Trib.) 236. 2.43 The contentions and arguments 1. The turnover of the assessee during the year has been increased due to the efforts made by the directors…

Orange Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 22(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5874/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Taranpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Senior DR
Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…n Valley Motors, [2006] 10 SOT 525 (Delhi) (e) Divakar Solar System Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 770 (Kolkata-Trib.) (f) Sigma Research & Consulting (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, [2019] 103 taxmann.com 397 (Delhi) (g) CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel), [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bombay) (h) PCIT vs. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd., [2015] 60 taxmann.com 483 (Gujarat) (i) CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd., [2010] 8 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay) 5 ITA No.5874/Del./2017 (j) CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF), [2012] 20 taxmann.com 622 (Punjab & Haryana). 6.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.” 7. F…

Mukesh Kumar, Bhattu vs. ITO Ward - 1, Fatehabad

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

ITA 6443/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

…on, the ld. counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Hotels Ltd., 177 Taxman 417 and Hive Communication (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 99. He also relied on the following decisions:- 4 High Court of Bombay i) 310 ITR 306 (Mum) CIT vs. Indo Saudi Travel (P) Ltd. ii) 336 ITR 209 (Bom) CIT vs. Y.S. Dempo & Co. (P) Ltd. High Court of Karnataka i) 293 ITR 451 (Kar) DCIT vs. Mircotex Separators Ltd. ITAT Delhi Bench i) ITA No. 429/D/2011 dated 7.12.2012 Raj Surendra and Associates vs. ACIT ii) 10 SOT 525 (Del) ACIT vs. Doon Valley Motors iii) ITA No. 4034/D/2007 (Del)…

Health Asyst Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2394/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.S Naveen Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)

…ves and associate would be treated as bona fide case unless the officer finds that one of them is trying to evade payment of tax. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 310 ITR 306 where assessee was a general sales agent of a foreign airline and that, the Ld.AO found therein that incentive commission paid by that assessee to its sister concern was half percent more than that paid to other subagents. Relying on the provisions of section 40(A)(2) of the Act, the Ld.AO therein disallowed excess commission paid to the sister c…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…n 40A (2) would apply to the present case, then the following propositions laid down by various courts have to be considered. Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT 13.21. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 306 relying on CBDT Circular No. 6-P, dated 6-7-1968 held that no disallowance should be made under section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the payments made to the relatives and sister concerns where there is no attempt to evade tax. 13.22. Having held that the provisions of section 40A (2) of the Act does not apply to the facts of the ca…

Orange Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2091/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2021AY 2012-13
Section 40(2)(b)Section 40A

…ley Motors, [2006] 10 SOT 525 (Delhi) (e) Divakar Solar System Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 770 (Kolkata-Trib.) (f) Sigma Research & Consulting (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, [2019] 103 taxmann.com 397 (Delhi) (g) CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel), [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bombay) (h) PCIT vs. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd., [2015] 60 taxmann.com 483 (Gujarat) (i) CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. (P.) Ltd., [2010] 8 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay) (j) CIT vs. Siya Ram Garg (HUF), [2012] 20 taxmann.com 622 (Punjab & Haryana). Orange Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 6.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assess…

M/S Adwise Consultations Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cirlce 4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 275/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.275/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle 4(1)(2) बनाम/ Jer Mahal, Opp. Metro Cinema 642, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-2363-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.R.Khalsa-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 30/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 30/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Khalsa-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(a)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ई” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.275/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Edwise Consultants Pvt. Ltd. DCIT-Circle 4(1)(2) बनाम/ Jer Mahal, Opp. Metro Cinema 642, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACR-2363-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal – Ld. AR Revenue by…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1811/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1811/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri M. M. Galvala, DRFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194J

…and operational results, justify the payments made to the directors. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the binding decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd (2009)(310 ITR 306), wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court referred to the Circular issued by CBDT with regard to sec. 40A(2)(a) as under:- “Under the CBDT Circular No. 6-P, dated 6th July, 1968 it is stated that no disallowance is to be made under section 40A(2) in respect of payments made to relatives and sister concerns where there is no attempt to evade tax.”…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…would cause DCIT-15(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kalsha Builders Pvt. ltd. 11 ITA No. 1202/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 hardships in bonafide cases. Relying on the said circular, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom), had observed, that no disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) can be made in respect of payments to relatives or sister concerns when there was no attempt to evade tax. As such, we are of the considered view, that now when the directors had been subjected to tax at the maximum marginal rates on the respective amounts of remuneration received by them fr…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s

ITA 5877/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2004-05] M/S Ikea Trading (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), C-16, Second Floor, C-Block Market, New Delhi Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] & [Assessment Year: 2004-05] Dcit, Circle 11(1), Room No. 312, Vs. M/S Ikea Trading (India) Cr Building, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. C-16, Second Floor, C- Block Market, Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)

…o be made u/s. 40A(2) in respect of the payments made to the relatives and sister concerns where there is no attempt to evade tax. This Circular has been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. 310 ITR 306. Considering the totality of the facts in light of the CBDT Circular (Supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. Before closing by way of additional ground the Revenue has challenged the admission of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT…

Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s

ITA 5568/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2004-05] M/S Ikea Trading (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), C-16, Second Floor, C-Block Market, New Delhi Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] & [Assessment Year: 2004-05] Dcit, Circle 11(1), Room No. 312, Vs. M/S Ikea Trading (India) Cr Building, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. C-16, Second Floor, C- Block Market, Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)

…o be made u/s. 40A(2) in respect of the payments made to the relatives and sister concerns where there is no attempt to evade tax. This Circular has been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. 310 ITR 306. Considering the totality of the facts in light of the CBDT Circular (Supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. Before closing by way of additional ground the Revenue has challenged the admission of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT…

DCIT Cir-7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Hakuhodo Percept House, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6605/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Hakuhodo Percept Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(1)(2) Percept House, 22, Raghuvanshi Mill Room No. 126, 1St Floor Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai – 400 013 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcp3772A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Department By : Shri K.C. Selvamani

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Section 143(3)

…essment years and also in the subsequent assessment years towards fall in Gross Profit. 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel)(P) Ltd., 310 ITR 306] 16. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) we find that assessee made elaborate submissions including the additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) and a remand report was also called for from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report no adverse findings hav…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4200/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…it has incurred losses during the year and also assessed at loss figures. Therefore, in terms of CBDT circular No. 6P of 1968 dated 06/07/1968 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009 310 ITR 306), no disallowance would be warranted when there Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 was no attempt to evade taxes. Keeping in view the same, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.22.42 Lacs as made u/s 40A(2)(b). Ground (B) stand allowed. 10.6 The appeal stands partly allowed. Assessment Years: 2…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4199/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…it has incurred losses during the year and also assessed at loss figures. Therefore, in terms of CBDT circular No. 6P of 1968 dated 06/07/1968 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009 310 ITR 306), no disallowance would be warranted when there Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 was no attempt to evade taxes. Keeping in view the same, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.22.42 Lacs as made u/s 40A(2)(b). Ground (B) stand allowed. 10.6 The appeal stands partly allowed. Assessment Years: 2…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4198/MUM/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…it has incurred losses during the year and also assessed at loss figures. Therefore, in terms of CBDT circular No. 6P of 1968 dated 06/07/1968 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009 310 ITR 306), no disallowance would be warranted when there Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 was no attempt to evade taxes. Keeping in view the same, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.22.42 Lacs as made u/s 40A(2)(b). Ground (B) stand allowed. 10.6 The appeal stands partly allowed. Assessment Years: 2…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…it has incurred losses during the year and also assessed at loss figures. Therefore, in terms of CBDT circular No. 6P of 1968 dated 06/07/1968 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009 310 ITR 306), no disallowance would be warranted when there Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 was no attempt to evade taxes. Keeping in view the same, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.22.42 Lacs as made u/s 40A(2)(b). Ground (B) stand allowed. 10.6 The appeal stands partly allowed. Assessment Years: 2…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6978/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…it has incurred losses during the year and also assessed at loss figures. Therefore, in terms of CBDT circular No. 6P of 1968 dated 06/07/1968 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT V/s Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (2009 310 ITR 306), no disallowance would be warranted when there Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 was no attempt to evade taxes. Keeping in view the same, we delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.22.42 Lacs as made u/s 40A(2)(b). Ground (B) stand allowed. 10.6 The appeal stands partly allowed. Assessment Years: 2…