How many judgments cite CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds?

50 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271G, Section 10D, Section 92D, Section 143(3), Section 273B, Section 40A(2)(b).

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds

261 ITR 258High Court2003#2278 most cited

What is CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds authority for?

The assessee bears the initial burden to maintain and produce authentic documentation under Section 92D and Rule 10D to justify transactions with related parties, especially concerning the arm's length price for such transactions under Section 40A(2)(b). The discharge of this statutory obligation to maintain accurate data is a mandatory requirement of law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds · Shatrunjay Diamonds 261 ITR 258 · Section 92D · Rule 10D · transfer pricing documentation · arm's length price · assessee burden of proof · Section 40A(2)(b) · mandatory documentation · related party transactions · penalty Section 271G · specified domestic transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 271G Section 10D Section 92D Section 143(3)Section 273B Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92CA Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 92d(3)section 271g section 40a(2)(a)section 92d legal expenses closely held company arms length price management fees specified domestic transaction section 40a(2)(b)cup method maximum marginal rate

Judgments citing CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds

Mehta Brothers Exports, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5753/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5753/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Mehta Brothers Exports, The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O Natvarlal Vepari & Co., Income Tax -16(3), V. Chartered Accountants, 2 Nd Floor, Oricon House, 4Th Floor, Matru Mandir, 12, K. Dubash Marg, Tardeo Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafm2744B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sumen Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 46A

…Tribunal, Mumbai (ITAT) given in its order dated 12th August 2011. 2.3. The AO has not considered the submissions filed by the appellant during the course of hearing in light of the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (261 ITR 258). 3. Addition of Rs.62,57,080/- u/s 40A(2) of the Act 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.62,57,080/- in respect of purchase of rough diamonds from M/s. Polydiam N.V. u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3.2 The appellant submits that expenditure incurred for purchases from…

Lube Oil Distributors, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2875/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lube Oil Distributors Dcit -20(2) 25, Jakeria Bunder Road, Mumbai. Next To Rajdoot Hotel, Vs. Cotton Green, Mumbai-400033 Pan: Aabfl7691M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ani are in lines with expertise provided by them, however, the incentive paid is far beyond the market rates and restricted the disallowance paid to Rajiv Adani and Parag Adani to Rs. 24,00,000/-. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Shatrunjay Diomonds 261 ITR 258 held that the porpose of Legislature behind enacting section 40A (2)(b) was to provide for shifting of burden in case where the transaction is not at arm’s length. Though the initial onus is on the assessee that the payments of expanses made to related party is not excessive. However, in case the AO is not satisfied with the explanation he must b…

Hind Airlink Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2634/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2011-12 Hind Airlink P.Ltd. Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 12(1) A -1, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi Phase I, New Delhi 110 020

For Appellant: Sh. M.P.Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: None (Adjournment Application rejected)

Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…st person in business. The aforesaid judgment of Calcutta High Court was affirmed by the Apex Court in CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1978] 115 ITR 149 . In the same line is the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds [2003] 261 ITR 258/ 128 Taxman 759.” (Emphasis ours). 12.8. In this judgement at para 7, the Jurisdictional High Court has laid down that the burden is upon the assessee to establish that the price paid to a related party by it, is not excessive or unreasonable. Thus the argument of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that this burden of proof is on the Revenue is con…

Himanshu V Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2343/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.2343/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Shri Himanshu V Mehta, Acit, Circle-19(2), Prop. Mehta Poly Boards, Mumbai. Vs. 501/502, 5 Th Floor, Shivmani Building, Plot No.9, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 049. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aafpm7700G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Sameer G Dalal प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Ajay, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G DalalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay, DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2343/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Shri Himanshu V Mehta, ACIT, Circle-19(2), Prop. Mehta Poly Boards, Mumbai. Vs. 501/502, 5 th Floor, Shivmani Building, Plot No.9, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 049. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAFPM7700G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Sameer G Dalal प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Ajay, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 29.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2016 आदेश…

Amserve Consultants Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 6059/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. C.S.Agarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see. ITA 6059/Del/2013 M/s Amserve Consultants Ltd. ITA 6090/Del/13 M/s Amsure Insurance Agency Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 (i) Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in 303 ITR 271 (Madras H.C.) and CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 258 (Bombay H.C.). 9. He relied upon the order of the A.O. as well as that of the Ld.CIT(A) and also relied on certain other case laws which we would be discussing as and when necessary, during the course of our finding. 10. In response the Ld.Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions. He argued that under the section a disallowance can be…

Syngenta Biosciences P.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Ashwani Taneja, Am Syngenta Biosciences Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Amar Pradigm, Survey No.110/113, Tax, Circle-1(3), Mumbai. Baner Road, Pune-411045 564, Aaykar Bhawan, M. K. (Pan:Aaacz0348M) Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra P. Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92F

…furnish comparable transactions, apply appropriate method for determination of ALP and justify the same by producing relevant material and documents before the revenue authorities. Further in a recent judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 258 (Bom) it was held that the intricacies of the transactions are required to be explained by the assessee and the onus is on the assessee to explain the differences while leading proper evidence. This contention of the appellant is therefore not acceptable. x. In view of the facts and legal position as discussed above the adjustment made by the TPO…

Richmond Realty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5595/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)

Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 5595/MUM/2012 (Assessment Year 2009-2010) M/s. Richmond Realty Vs. ITO – 10(2)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Shrikant Chambers, 314, Above Hero Honda Showroom, Nr. R.K. Studio, Mumbai-71. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) PAN No.AADCR4669N Assessee by : None Department by : Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 03.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2016 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt. 28.6.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-22, Mumbai fo…

Stelmet Marketing, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

ITA 8599/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Feroze Andhyarujjina -ARFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikhalje-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,” ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“E”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.8599/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Stelmet Marketing ACIT -12(3) 219, Maker Chamber V Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. PAN No.AAEFS 8102 K (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" /…

Hive Communications Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/306/2011HC Delhi08 Jul 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 143Section 260Section 40ASection 40A(2)

…4. The aforesaid judgment of Calcutta High Court was affirmed by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Edward Keventer (Private) Ltd. (1978) 115 ITR 149 (SC). In the same line is the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 258 (Bom). 15. We thus answer the question in favour of the assessee and in the negative holding that the Tribunal was not correct in law in upholding disallowance or ` 13.20 lacs out of remuneration paid to Mr. Sushil Pandit by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act. The disallowance made is thus deleted and this appeal is al…

Hive Communications Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA - 306 / 2011HC Delhi08 Jul 2011

Section 143Section 260Section 40ASection 40A(2)