CIT v. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd.

396 ITR 595High Court2017#9047 most cited

What is CIT v. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd. authority for?

The doctrine of 'lifting the corporate veil' is not applied as a matter of course and requires cogent and compelling reasons with detailed factual investigation. Payments made to related parties cannot be disallowed without proving they were not for bonafide reasons.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Also referred to as

lifting corporate veil · cogent reasons · bonafide payments · related parties · CIT v. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd · corporate personality · factual investigation

Judgments citing CIT v. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd.

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…O. There has to be cogent and compelling reasons as to why the corporate veil has to be lifted. It cannot be lifted for an asking. In this connection he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd 396 ITR 595. The Hon'ble court observed that the doctrine of "lifting of corporate veil" is not to be ITA Nos.1211 to 1217/Bang/2019 Page 54 of 73 applied as a matter of course unless the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions exist. It is adopted exceptionally whenever and wherever, the situation warrants. It means a detailed investigation into the f…

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

…ted parties could not be summarily dislodged without proving that such payments were not for the bonafide reasons, took support of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-1, Lucknow Vs. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 595 (All). 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was the contention of the ld. D.R that as the assessee had made excessive payments to its related parties, hence the A.O in all fairness had most reasonably disallowed 30% of such payments under Sec. 40A(2)(a), which however had wron…

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

…ted parties could not be summarily dislodged without proving that such payments were not for the bonafide reasons, took support of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-1, Lucknow Vs. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 595 (All). 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was the contention of the ld. D.R that as the assessee had made excessive payments to its related parties, hence the A.O in all fairness had most reasonably disallowed 30% of such payments under Sec. 40A(2)(a), which however had wron…

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

ITA 4011/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4011 & 5070/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Room No. 622, Private Limited, G.D. Ambedkar Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, बिधम/ Marg, Naigaum Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Bombay- 400014. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacn5119J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralashwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 4011, 5070, 4681,5270/Mum/2013 AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s Nat Steel Equipment Private Limited Vs. DCIT-7(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 4011 & 5070/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s Nat Steel Equipment DCIT-7(1), Room No. 622, Private Limited, G.D. Ambedkar Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, बिधम/ Marg, Naigaum Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Bombay- 400014. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AAACN5119J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : ITA Nos. 4681 & 5270/Mum…

CIT v. Sahu Investment Mutual Benefit Co Ltd. (396 ITR 595) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax