CIT v. Northern India Iron & Steel Company Ltd: (1989) 179 ITR 599 and CIT v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd.

215 ITR 522High Court1995#17222 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2010.

Judgments citing CIT v. Northern India Iron & Steel Company Ltd: (1989) 179 ITR 599 and CIT v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Expo Mecanique Marketing Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any

ITA - 1154 / 2010HC Delhi17 Aug 2010
Section 260ASection 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(B)

…r India Publishing House P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax, (1979) 117 ITR 569(SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., (1989) 179 ITR 599(Delhi) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd., (1995) 215 ITR 522(Delhi). On a perusal of the aforesaid decisions, the principle that emanates is that the payment of salary to a ITA 1154/2010 page 4 of 5 . director, whether reasonable or not, would be in the realm of facts. To elaborate, the line of authority that has been brought to our notice has laid emphasis on the concept of reasona…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Oriental Structural Engineers P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/146/2010HC Delhi11 Feb 2010
For Respondent: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Ankit Gupta
Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…. This issue according to us is a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1979) 117 ITR 569 and the Division Bench of thi C t i th f CIT V N th I di I & 2010:DHC:857-DB Mohta Electrosteel Ltd: (1995) 215 ITR 522 have held that whether or not an expenditure is unreasonable and hence, merits disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A of the Act, is essentially a question of fact”. 5. No question of law, what to speak of a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED,…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Oriental Structural Engineers P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 146 / 2010HC Delhi11 Feb 2010
For Respondent: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Ankit Gupta
Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…. This issue according to us is a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1979) 117 ITR 569 and the Division Bench of thi C t i th f CIT V N th I di I & 2010:DHC:857-DB Mohta Electrosteel Ltd: (1995) 215 ITR 522 have held that whether or not an expenditure is unreasonable and hence, merits disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A of the Act, is essentially a question of fact”. 5. No question of law, what to speak of a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED,…

Income Tax vs. Dr R. N. Goel

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/632/2007HC Delhi06 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr C S Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40A

…of fact. The Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd v. CIT: (1979) 117 ITR 569 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Northern India Iron & Steel Company Ltd: (1989) 179 ITR 599 and CIT v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd: (1995) 215 ITR 522 have held that whether or not an expenditure is unreasonable and hence, merits disallowance under the provisions of Section 40Aof the Act, is essentially a question of fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid statement of law and having examined for ourselves the orders of the authorities below, we do not find any perversity in the findings retur…

Income Tax vs. Dr R. N. Goel

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA/631/2007HC Delhi06 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Mr Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr C S Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40A

…of fact. The Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd v. CIT: (1979) 117 ITR 569 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Northern India Iron & Steel Company Ltd: (1989) 179 ITR 599 and CIT v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd: (1995) 215 ITR 522 have held that whether or not an expenditure is unreasonable and hence, merits disallowance under the provisions of Section 40Aof the Act, is essentially a question of fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid statement of law and having examined for ourselves the orders of the authorities below, we do not find any perversity in the findings retur…

CIT v. Northern India Iron & Steel Company Ltd: (1989) 179 ITR 599 and CIT v. Mohta Electrosteel Ltd. (215 ITR 522) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax