CIT v. Sigma Paints Ltd.

188 ITR 6Reported decision1990#23285 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sigma Paints Ltd.

ACIT. Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eipr India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 14ASection 69C

…and is based on cogent material.” ………… The second question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.” (II) The Assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Sigma Paints Ltd (1990) 188 ITR 6 where it was held as follows: “…….. He has further invited our attention to paragraphs 24 to 28 of the judgment in that case to show that the assessee had produced various details and the records maintained by the company relating to the secret commission payments. Vouchers for the amounts received by the sales officer or other responsible persons…

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Seth, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…s held in the case of Sasoon David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 118 ITR 261 that it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. It was also held by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Sigma Paints Ltd 188 ITR 6 that payment of commission is an allowable expenditure if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business carried on by the assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastik Textiles Co. Pvt. Ltd. 150 ITR 55 upheld the contention of the assessee about ITA No.1420/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 ACIT Cir-32, Kol. Vs. Jitendr…

Sri Kiran Bhagat, Uttar Dinajpur vs. JCIT, R-2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, ( on all the grounds), is

ITA 1325/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1325/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-2012) Sri Kiran Bhagat, Vs. Jcit, Range-2, Jalpaiguri Prop. Bishal Enterprise, Dist- Uttar Dinajpur, Pin-733 202 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajepb 1680 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G.Hukunga, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri In Appeal No.02/Jal/Cit(A)/Jal/2014-15, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 17.02.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 30.02.2012 Showing Total Income At Rs.3,60,240/- . The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment After Making Addition Of Rs.5,12,186/- On Account Of Bogus Expenditure ( Discount Allowed By The Assessee Was Treated By The Ao As Bogus Expenditure). During The Course Of Hearing While Verifying The Claim Of Expenditure In The Profit & Loss Account Of Expenditure Of Rs.14,22,455/- Under The Head “Discount”. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hukunga, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ost of Supreme Court and High Court's judgments thereafter on the subject. We, therefore, direct deletion of the sum of Rs. 17,00,892 assessed by the Assessing Officer by way of half share of the assessee in the alleged earnest money.” ii) Sigma Paints Ltd., 188 ITR 6 : “The Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 37(1) in respect of amount paid as secret commission” The sum and substance of these judgments are that where the assessee incurs any expenditure for the purpose of business, he is entitled to claim the deduction U/s.37(1) of the Act. 4.2. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue has poin…