CIT v. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd.

293 ITR 237High Court#4837 most cited

What is CIT v. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd. authority for?

Additions made purely on a notional basis, without supporting evidence, are liable to be deleted.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd. · 293 ITR 237 · notional additions · deletion of addition · basis of addition · income tax assessment · revenue additions · evidentiary basis · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

illegal paymentexplanation to section 37prohibited by lawrule of consistencysection 44adsection 153a(1)regular assessmentreopening of assessmentpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 132(4)section 37genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd.

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…. CIT: 248 ITR 47 (Gau.) • Highways Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT: 199 ITR 702 (Gau.) • Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna vs. CIT [1992]: 198 ITR 415 (All) • CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corpn. Ltd.: 295 ITR 510 (P&H HC) • CIT vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd.: 293 ITR 237 (Chennai HC) • CIT vs. Sanghi Finance and Investment Ltd.: 190 CTR 207 (MP) ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 6.4 We have considered rival submissions and the decisions relied upon by both the parties. We have already deleted the addition made in assessment year 2006-07 and also in assessment year 2007-08, therefore, on this grou…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…. CIT: 248 ITR 47 (Gau.) • Highways Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT: 199 ITR 702 (Gau.) • Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna vs. CIT [1992]: 198 ITR 415 (All) • CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corpn. Ltd.: 295 ITR 510 (P&H HC) • CIT vs. South India Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd.: 293 ITR 237 (Chennai HC) • CIT vs. Sanghi Finance and Investment Ltd.: 190 CTR 207 (MP) ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 6.4 We have considered rival submissions and the decisions relied upon by both the parties. We have already deleted the addition made in assessment year 2006-07 and also in assessment year 2007-08, therefore, on this grou…

Bharath Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 is also dismissed

ITA 1903/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 43B

…acts of the present case, this judgment cited by ld. AR of assessee is not applicable. 23. The second judgment cited before us is the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT VS. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. as reported in 293 ITR 237. In that case also, this was the dispute as to whether there can be disallowance of interest in respect of funds borrowed in earlier year when there was no disallowance of interest in the earlier year and there was no fresh borrowing. Hence, for same reasons, this judgment is also not applicable in the present case because disallowance of interes…

M/S. International Clearing & Shipping Agency, Chennai vs. Additional CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Department and Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2209/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2209/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. International Clearing Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Shipping Agency, Income Tax, Old No.158, New No.325, Business Range-Viii, Linghi Chetty Street, Parrys, Chennai Chennai 600 001. [Pan Aaafi 0178B ]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayarghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…that the payment of money is not disputed and Revenue accepted as speed money to expedite the work to have a edge over the competitors and further supported his arguments on the Jurisdictional High Court decision of CIT vs. South India Corporation Agencies 293 ITR 237 (Mad) and prayed for deletion of disallowance. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the findings of the above decision and held as at page no.7 of order as under ‘’The assessee paid incentives to Dock Labour Board Workers in order to achieve maximum output, but 50 percent. Of the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer fi…