CIT v. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain

267 ITR 572High Court2004#8358 most cited

What is CIT v. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain authority for?

Ad hoc additions to income are not permissible without specific evidence. Disallowances must be based on concrete findings, not mere presumptions.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain · 267 ITR 572 · ad hoc additions · disallowance · presumption · evidence · travelling expenses · staff welfare expenses

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)section 194hsection 135csr expenditureretrospective amendmentright to receiveadditional depreciationsection 32(1)mercantile system of accountingassessee in defaultsection 40(a)section 32

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

…deleted. n) Reliance is also placed on following judgments wherein it was held that adhoc additions are not permissible. a. JJ Entreprises vs CIT(2002) 254 ITR 216 (SC) b. LalchandBhapatAmbica Ram vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288(SC) c. CIT vs Shehnaz Hussain (2004) 267 ITR 572 (Del) d. Vichitra Constructions (P) Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA N_{0} 5047/Del/2015, dated 27.05.2019 (Hon'ble Delhi ITAT) 7.9 In view of the above facts and discussion and respectfully following the judgments outlined above the ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO out of Travelling expenses is held to be made on presumption only. The AO has made this disal…

ACIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs. Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 765/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Circle-17(1), 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, New Delhi. Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, Sr-6, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. New Delhi. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg & Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…al position. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon following case laws enumerated as under:-  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC);  Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del.);  ACIT vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT, Delhi);  ACIT vs Precision Pipes & Profiles Co.Ltd., ITA No.4257 & 4258/D/2012 (ITAT Delhi);  Sonic Biochem Extractions P.Ltd. vs ITO (2013) 23 ITR 447/59 SOT 4 (URO)(Mum.)(Trib.);  Seasons Catering Services P.Ltd. vs DCIT [2010] 127 ITD 50 (Delhi)/43 DTR 397 (Del). 35. Fu…

Mitsui & Co. India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Sr-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Circle-17(1), 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, New Delhi. Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mitsui & Co. India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, 4Th Floor, World Mark, 3, Aero City, Sr-6, Nh-8, New Delhi-110037. New Delhi. Pan-Aadcm4488J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg & Ms. Supriya Mehta, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…al position. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon following case laws enumerated as under:-  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC);  Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del.);  ACIT vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT, Delhi);  ACIT vs Precision Pipes & Profiles Co.Ltd., ITA No.4257 & 4258/D/2012 (ITAT Delhi);  Sonic Biochem Extractions P.Ltd. vs ITO (2013) 23 ITR 447/59 SOT 4 (URO)(Mum.)(Trib.);  Seasons Catering Services P.Ltd. vs DCIT [2010] 127 ITD 50 (Delhi)/43 DTR 397 (Del). 35. Fu…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…itted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments: Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018  CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi.  ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455  M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018  DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Aman Garg, C. AFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 43B

…itted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments: Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1148 & 1041/Del/2018  CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi.  ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455  M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018  DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…the disallowance. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments. " CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi. " ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455 " M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018 " DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30.07…

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3697/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…the disallowance. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments. " CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi. " ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455 " M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018 " DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30.07…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3438/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…the disallowance. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments. " CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi. " ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455 " M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018 " DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30.07…

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…the disallowance. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has given the well reason finding and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is an ad-hoc disallowance and cannot be sustained in view of the following judgments. " CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del. HC) ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, ITA No.1952/Del/2014 (ITAT Delhi. " ACIT v. Amtek Auto Limited [2006] 112 TTJ 455 " M/s Nine Dot Nine Media work Pvt. Ltd., v. ITO [ITA No. 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] dated 30.07.2018 " DCIT versus Grintex India Limited ITA No, 1262/Del/2016 And ITA No. 863/Del/2016] ITAT (Del.) dated 30.07…

M/S. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3367/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 37

…round that the assessee had given valid explanation for not capitalizing the same items in different units and disallowance was made on presumption basis and adhoc basis. Learned AR places reliance on the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain, 267 ITR 572 (Del), ACIT vs. M/s. Modi Rubber Limited (ITA No. 1952/Del/2014)(ITAT Delhi), ACIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd., 112 TTJ 455, M/s. Nine Dot Nine Media Work Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITANo. 1262/Del/2016 and ITA No. 863/Del/2016) dated 30.07.2018, DCIT vs. Grintex India Ltd (ITA No. 4622/Del/2016, Dhir & Dhir Associates vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2169/Del/2014) dated 16.…

Dhir and Dhir Associates, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

…Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances of Rs.2,47,906/- on telephone and vehicle maintenance and Rs.93,374/- on account of the business promotion expenses.” Further, vide decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del.), Seasons Catering Services P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2010] 127 ITD 50 (Delhi), and lot many decisions of coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, it is a settled law that without pointing out any specific defect in the statutorily mandated audited books of the assessee, and with reference to any specific instances where the expenses have been incurre…

Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6625/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…dition be deleted. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, West Bengal, (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 5 I.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 b) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC). c) CIT vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del). d) J. J. Enterprises vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC). e) Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.5047/Del/2015 dated 27.05.2019). 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly disallowed these expenses as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the expenditure. Thus, the Ld. DR reli…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Grintex India Ltd., Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4622/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…sallowance of expenditure on ad-hoc basis. The concept of ad-hoc disallowance has been repeatedly deterred by the Hon’ble High Court and addition made on such basis is liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del) held that addition made on estimate and hypothetical grounds without any concrete ITA No. 4622/Del/2016. Grintex India Ltd. material or evidence cannot be sustained. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition with the proper findings. There is no need to interfere with the same. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 8…