CIT v. Lubtec India Ltd.

311 ITR 175High Court2009#3469 most cited

What is CIT v. Lubtec India Ltd. authority for?

An addition on account of expenditure cannot be made under section 69C if the Assessing Officer has not established that the assessee actually incurred the expenditure.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lubtec India Ltd. · section 69C · expenditure incurred · unexplained expenditure · onus on AO · addition on account of expenditure · Kishan Lal Jewels · Lakshmi Hospital

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 69ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 131Section 132

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133asection 132(4a)unexplained expendituresection 69bbusiness connectionsection 41(1)dumb documentssundry creditorssection 41section 69cloose paperssection 40a(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Lubtec India Ltd.

Manubhai Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC2 (3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our order

ITA 7301/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shree V.Sreekar-Ld.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…1 Manubhai Gems Private Limited Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7301/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Manubhai Gems Private Ltd. DCIT-Central Circle-2(3) बनाम/ Room No. 803, 8th Floor Shop No.5/6/7 Megh Opp. HSBC, Factory Lane Corner Old CGO Building Annexe Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी…

Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 777/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…3 ITR 43 [Del.] [HC]. 03. ACIT vs., Kences Foundation (P.) Ltd., [2007] 289 ITR 509 [Madras] [HC]. 04. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III vs., Suneet Verma [2007] 145 DLT 280 [DB] [Del.] [HC]. 05. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Lubtec India Ltd., [2009] 311 ITR 175 [Del.] [HC]. Order of ITAT, Delhi C-Bench, Delhi in the case of 06. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs., ACIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 [Del.] [TM]. Order of ITAT, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in the case of M/s. Fantastic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati vs., 07. ITO, Ward-2(1), Guwahati in ITA.No.104/Gau/2011 & SP.No.09/Gau/2011, Dated 07.02.2012. 08. Order of ITAT,…

Shri Vibhuti Singh Deora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 308/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Miss. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 131Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 308/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke Vibhuti Singh Deora, ITO, Vs. Jaipur Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADHPD7082R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss. Chanchal Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hea…

M/S Gas Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1738/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1738/Del/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम M/S. Gag Construction Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M-11, Middle Circular, Income Tax, Central Circle- Connaught Circus, 23, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110 001. New Delhi -110 055. [Pan: Aabcg 3001 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ver, the A.O. has made addition without any material or evidence brought on record, simply on the basis of presumption. The ld.Counsel placed reliance on the decision on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lubtec India Ltd., [2009] 311 ITR 175 (Del) and CIT Vs. Ved Prakash Chowdhary 305 ITR 245 (Del) in this regard. Per contra, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that the modus-operandi adopted 14. by the group in BPTP has been accepted that the interest is being paid that PDC’s only during the period of extension of PDC such finding for calculation of interest in respect of payment on similar ci…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiincome Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Ward-49(4), Prop M/S. Real Services, New Delhi C-2/36, 2Nd Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi Pan: Aahpc8798E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 69C

…ome of the assessee for such financial year. But in the present case, the AO has not brought any material on record to establish that an excess expenditure was incurred. The appellant has also relied upon the following judgments: i) CIT vs. Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del); ii) CIT vs. C.L. Khalri 282 ITR 97 (MR); iii) Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram vs. ITO 63 TTJ 557 (Del); iv) M.P. Mallival vs. JCIT10 SOT 319 (Hyd)(TM); v) ITO vs. L.N. Mehta (HUF) 77 TTJ 63 Jodhopur); vi) ACIT vs. K.H. Dhamdhere 19 SOT 201 (Coch); vii) Harakchand P. Vora vs. ACIT 68 TTJ 417 (Mum); viii) Pradip C. Patel vs. DCIT 58 TTJ 409 (Ah…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Flex Engineering Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2502/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. RastogiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…d before making any addition u/s 69C of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chandulal Sadhuram Khemani 53 TAxmann.com 293 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lubtec India Ltd 311 ITR 175. 21. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 22. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are solely based upon the Volkar Committee. In our understanding of the provisions of section 69C of the Act, first of…

Flex Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1128/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. RastogiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…d before making any addition u/s 69C of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chandulal Sadhuram Khemani 53 TAxmann.com 293 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lubtec India Ltd 311 ITR 175. 21. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 22. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are solely based upon the Volkar Committee. In our understanding of the provisions of section 69C of the Act, first of…

Flex Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1127/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. RastogiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…d before making any addition u/s 69C of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chandulal Sadhuram Khemani 53 TAxmann.com 293 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lubtec India Ltd 311 ITR 175. 21. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 22. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are solely based upon the Volkar Committee. In our understanding of the provisions of section 69C of the Act, first of…

Flex Engineering Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. RastogiFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)

…d before making any addition u/s 69C of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chandulal Sadhuram Khemani 53 TAxmann.com 293 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lubtec India Ltd 311 ITR 175. 21. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 22. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are solely based upon the Volkar Committee. In our understanding of the provisions of section 69C of the Act, first of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3520/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: PendingITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirealtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D-22, Defence Colony, Central Circle-21, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcr1098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-21, D-22, Defence Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcr1098P (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-21, D-22, Deference Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcr1098P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel,AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 250(1)Section 271(1)

…irectors as well as other group constituents of the Realtech group. Further the AO has made the addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. In this connection it is important to mention the judicial ruling in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Lubtec India 311 ITR 175 in which it has been held that It is quite clear that what is postulated in section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is that first of all the appellant must have incurred that expenditure and thereafter, if the explanation offered by the appellant about the source of such expenditure is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, the amount…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…xmann.com 366 (Del) 11/09/2015] xiv) Assessment cannot be made on presumptions / assumptions / pure guess work i) J.J. Enterprises Vs CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) ii) CIT VsVed Prakash Chaudhary 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi High Court) iii) CIT Vs Lubtec India Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 175 (Delhi High Court) 26. Thereafter, the CIT(A) went ahead by taking the shelter of moral conduct and that every citizen must cooperate with the Government in tax provisions. In this regard it is stated that income-tax is not leviable on morality. The revenue is duty bound to prove the tax evasion and not to assess the income on morality as has be…

Gudla Bhaskar Rao, Koraput vs. ACIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

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

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

…its business enterprises. This search and the subsequent enquiries did not reveal ownership and operation of any such cold storage by the appellant or any member of the group. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lubtec India Ltd.(2009) 311 ITR 175(Del) that no addition towards unexplained expenditure as done by the AO in this case can be made simply based on certain figures jotted down on loose papers found during the course of search. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, two sheets of papers were seized in which some figures were noted in respect of items like dinner, gift, projecto…

Yazdani International (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

…its business enterprises. This search and the subsequent enquiries did not reveal ownership and operation of any such cold storage by the appellant or any member of the group. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lubtec India Ltd.(2009) 311 ITR 175(Del) that no addition towards unexplained expenditure as done by the AO in this case can be made simply based on certain figures jotted down on loose papers found during the course of search. In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, two sheets of papers were seized in which some figures were noted in respect of items like dinner, gift, projecto…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. 332 ITR 468 (P&H) " CIT Vs Dolphin Builders (P.) Ltd. 356 ITR 420 (MP) " ACIT Vs Sharad Chaudhary 165 TTJ 145 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) " ITO Vs Twinkle Papers (P.) Ltd. 95 TTJ 987 (Chd. Trib.) (TM) 17. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authoritie…