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.

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

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

ITA 6977/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

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…

Shree Ahuja Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 9 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2699/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(a)

…assessee finally submits that this ground of appeal is covered in favour of assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Indo-Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd. (310 ITR 306), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when the revenue was not in a position to point out how the assessee evaded payment of tax by alleged payment to higher commission to its sister concern, sister concern was also paid tax at higher rate, the disallowance of excess commission to sister concern was not justified. The ld. AR of the assessee…

M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dycit RG. - 3(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal/ Jay Bhansali, CAFor Respondent: Sushil Kumar Poddar/Ms. Samatha Mullumudi
Section 80H

…tained disallowance of such expenditure in AY 2003- 17 Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt Ltd 04, has upheld the disallowance in the current year. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CIT vs. Indo-Saudi Services Travel P. Ltd 2009 310 ITR 306 Bom ii. Orchard Advertising P Ltd. vs. Addl CIT 2010 8 taxmann.com 162 Mum 32. The learned DR strongly relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and Assessing Officer. 33. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We have also carefully examined the case laws cited before us. Though, while disa…

Jay Precision Products (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 972/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 972/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2557/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Jay Precision Products (India) The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), 12A, Colopen Compound, Old बनाम/ Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcj3642D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A

…s no question of evasion of tax. 9. We have gone through the case law referred by the learned Counsel for the assessee of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 15 | P a g e ITA Nos.972 & 2557 /Mum/2018 in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom.), wherein commission paid to sister concern was not held to be for evasion of tax and held to be allowable as reasonable. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Para 4 & 5 held as under: - “4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for both sides. W7e have also perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21st Oct., 1999 which is impugned by…

Jay Precision Products (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2557/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 972/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2557/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Jay Precision Products (India) The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), 12A, Colopen Compound, Old बनाम/ Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcj3642D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A

…s no question of evasion of tax. 9. We have gone through the case law referred by the learned Counsel for the assessee of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 15 | P a g e ITA Nos.972 & 2557 /Mum/2018 in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom.), wherein commission paid to sister concern was not held to be for evasion of tax and held to be allowable as reasonable. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Para 4 & 5 held as under: - “4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for both sides. W7e have also perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21st Oct., 1999 which is impugned by…

Mdindia Healthcare Services (Tpa) Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mdindia Healthcare Services (Tpa) Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Mdindia Health Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd.) S.No.46/1, E-Space Building, A-2 Wing, 3Rd Floor, Pune Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aadcm4828N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 14(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…the year in which the assessee company had claimed deduction. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd. (supra) and also the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT. Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Private Limited (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom) in the facts before them, had held that where the commission has been paid to the directors and taxes have been paid by the said directors on its income, then no disallowance was warranted in the hands of assessee company. Hence, no disallowance was warranted under section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. This proposition was applied by the Tribunal i…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon vs. Shri Rtanlal Chunnilal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.625/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde
Section 133ASection 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.625/PUN/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Shri Ratanlal Chunnilal Bafna, 96, Subhash Chowk, Jalgaon-425 001. PAN: AAMPB3939K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Munde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 आदेश / ORDE…

M/S. Gl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi PAN: AADCG6909N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Adv Ms. Nisha Rachh, FCA Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Adv Ms. Lata Goyal, CA Revenue by: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23/04/2019 Date of pronouncement 01/07/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by GL LITMUS E…

Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4977/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtrimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Acit - 10(3) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit - 15(3)(1) Dgp House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. Pan: Aabct2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ars) Respondent By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2019 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Cit(A)]-22, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2012 & Ld. Cit(A)-24, Mumbai Dated 24.06.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) For Ita No. 3471/M/12 & 4977/M/16- Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. ACIT - 10(3) DGP House, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. PAN: AABCT2569F Appellant Respondent Trimode Properties Pvt. Ltd. DCIT - 15(3)(1) DGP House, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 88C, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Vs. PAN: AABCT2569F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Hitesh Trivedi (ARs) Respondent by :…

Quantum Advisors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional CIT Range-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacq0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. Of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaacq0281C Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACQ0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, PAN: AAACQ0281C Mumbai -…

DCIT - 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3989/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacq0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/S Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. Of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaacq0281C Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 1(3)(1), 503, Regent Chambers, Room No. 540, 5th Floor, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACQ0281C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s Qauntum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Comm. of Income 503, Regent Chambers, Tax, Circle- 1(2), Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, PAN: AAACQ0281C Mumbai -…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…the provisions of the section 40A (2) would apply to the present case, then the following propositions laid down by various courts have to be considered. 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…

The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

…enue. Thus, he submitted, no disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act should be made. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Indo Soudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 209 (Bom.); and iii) Chryscapital Investment Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd.…

M/S Salt Lake Society for Hotel Management, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-43(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 156/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…rse to by the specified parties. He invites our attention to the CBDT’s Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968 making necessary clarification to this effect as considered in hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom), V.S Dempo & Co. (D) Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 209 (Bom) and CIT vs. Siya Rans Garg (2011) 237 CTR 321 (P&H). He then refers to the two payee’ income tax returns acknowledgements indicating both of them to have declared respective taxable income(s) of ₹70,30,744/- and ₹38,07,614/- in former assessment year 2011-12. The same sufficiently indicate…

M/S Salt Lake Society for Hotel Management, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-43(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 155/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…rse to by the specified parties. He invites our attention to the CBDT’s Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968 making necessary clarification to this effect as considered in hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom), V.S Dempo & Co. (D) Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 209 (Bom) and CIT vs. Siya Rans Garg (2011) 237 CTR 321 (P&H). He then refers to the two payee’ income tax returns acknowledgements indicating both of them to have declared respective taxable income(s) of ₹70,30,744/- and ₹38,07,614/- in former assessment year 2011-12. The same sufficiently indicate…

Park Avenue Associates, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-9, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 99/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Park Avenue Associates, Jcit, 10Th Floor, Commerce House-Iv, Range-9, Vs. 100 Ft Road, Nr. Prahlad Nagar, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad-380 015. Pan: Aaifp3192J

Section 234A

…here was no escapement of income, and accordingly, no loss of Revenue occurred to the Government Exchequer. 14.5 We also find support and guidance from the Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indo Saudi Services (Travels) (p) Ltd. reported in 310 ITR 306 wherein it as held as under : “Where the revenue was not in a position to point out how the assessee evaded payment of tax by alleged payment of higher commission to its sister concern since the sister concern was also paying tax at higher rate, and copies of the assessment orders of the sister concern were taken on record by the Tribunal, disal…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Samachar P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 35/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1)(1), Mumbai v/s The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. Red House, Sayed Abdulla Brelavi Road Horniman Circle, Fort ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 023 PAN – AAACT1340B ITA no. 7171/Mum./2010 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. Red House, Sayed Abdulla Brelavi Road Horniman Circle, Fort ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 023 PAN – AAACT1340B v/s Asstt. Commiss…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Indo Enterprises, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1221/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1221/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

…n each of the above additions is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. 3.1 Regarding the remuneration paid to the Directors, the CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indo Saudi Services Travel Private Limited 310 ITR 306 (Bom.) and submitted that the AO failed to demonstrate the applicability of the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Further, CIT(A) reasoned that the addition is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is not conceptualised in these provisions. He accordingly deleted the additions as per the discussion given in Para Nos. 13 to 15…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7175/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…y making the payments to its related parties had evaded payment of taxes, no disallowance under Sec.40A(2)(a) could have been made, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom). The ld. A.R further in order to drive home his contention that not only a heavy onus was cast upon the revenue to establish that the payment made by the assessee to its related parties was found to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the M/s Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. goods, services or facilities fo…

Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7142/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…y making the payments to its related parties had evaded payment of taxes, no disallowance under Sec.40A(2)(a) could have been made, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom). The ld. A.R further in order to drive home his contention that not only a heavy onus was cast upon the revenue to establish that the payment made by the assessee to its related parties was found to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the M/s Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. goods, services or facilities fo…