CIT v. Motilal Khatri

174 Taxmann 427High Court2008#13137 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also reported as

218 CTR 602

Issues it is cited on

explanation to section 37section 40a(3)section 40asection 37(1)section 40section 37search and seizuresection 153asection 132section 68transferperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Motilal Khatri

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. COUNTRYWIDE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6343/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6343/Del/2013: Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Countrywide Promoters Tax, Central Circle-23, Pvt. Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, New Delhi-110055 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC5280H ITA No. 6304/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Tax, Central Circle-23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT…

COUNTRYWIDE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6343/Del/2013: Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Countrywide Promoters Tax, Central Circle-23, Pvt. Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, New Delhi-110055 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC5280H ITA No. 6304/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08 M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Tax, Central Circle-23, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT…

UGC BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…allowance u/s 40A(3). On the proposition that no disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) where no deduction is claimed the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- CIT vs. Motilal Khatri (2008) 218 CTR 602 (Raj.) i) ii) CIT Faridabad vs. Alpha Toyo Ltd (2008) 174 Taxmann 427 (Punj. & Har.) iii) CIT vs. Banwari Lai Bansidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All) iv) Embee Clearing & Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd [2007] 12 SOT 227 (Mum.) Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) should be deleted. The issue of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash payment made for purchase of land was first decided by the Tribunal, New…

USG BUILDWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1351/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…land having not been claimed as expenditure, there could be no disallowance u/s 40A(3). On the proposition that no disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) where no deduction is claimed the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- CIT vs. Motilal Khatri (2008) 218 CTR 602 (Raj.) i) ii) CIT Faridabad vs. Alpha Toyo Ltd (2008) 174 Taxmann 427 (Punj. & Har.) iii) CIT vs. Banwari Lai Bansidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All) iv) Embee Clearing & Shipping Service Pvt. Ltd [2007] 12 SOT 227 (Mum.) Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) should be deleted. The issue of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of cash payment…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

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

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…uding the impugned sum of Rs.83.602 lacs, as a deduction in computing business income, a fact lost sight by the AO, for him to have disallowed the cash component of the purchase transaction, for which reliance was placed by him on CIT v. Motilal Khatri [2008] 218 CTR 602 (Raj). Without prejudice, even if it was considered that the assessee along with others had entered into a joint venture, the violation of section 40A(3) and, thus, disallowance there-under, could only be effected in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP) consisting of the assessee and the other purchasers (owners) of the subject land. Rel…

SUBHAM ESTCON PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 183/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 40A(3)

…e and no amount has been debited in the profit and loss account and claimed as deduction. Therefore, no disallowance u/s.40A(3) is warranted. For this, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Motilal Khatri, 218 CTR 602 (Raj), wherein, it was held that the assessee has not claimed any Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 201 2 deduction of any expenditure, and therefore, there is no question of not allowing any part of that expenditure, as deduction. 7. Further, he relied on the decision of Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ch Hanumantha Rao vs ITO, 164…

M/S WELLWORTH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1761/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Rastogi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…d gains of business or profession’. Thus consequently what does not fall within the computation of income will not attract the provisions of section 40A (3). On this issue the judgement of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Motilal Khatri (2008) 218 CTR 602 (Raj.) is very clear. Their Lordships before arriving at their decision categorically took note of the fact that the provisions of section 40A (3) had been looked at and thereafter the position is very clear in as much as when the assessee has not claimed any deduction of any expenditure the question of not allowing any part of that expenditur…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WELLWORTH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1675/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Jyoti Kumari, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Rastogi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…d gains of business or profession’. Thus consequently what does not fall within the computation of income will not attract the provisions of section 40A (3). On this issue the judgement of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Motilal Khatri (2008) 218 CTR 602 (Raj.) is very clear. Their Lordships before arriving at their decision categorically took note of the fact that the provisions of section 40A (3) had been looked at and thereafter the position is very clear in as much as when the assessee has not claimed any deduction of any expenditure the question of not allowing any part of that expenditur…

CIT v. Motilal Khatri (174 Taxmann 427) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax