CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT

30 ITR 764High Court1956#10518 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessmentu/s 23 (3) of IT Act as held in the following cases Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 775 Gopinath Agarwal vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753, Madura Knitting Co.vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 BansidarOnkarmal v CIT 23 ITR 35 12. The courts have held that a low G.P. rate may not per se lead to an inference that the accounts are false. Case Laws. i) International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K) (727) Mere low yield cannot be taken as indication of suppression of sales by the assessee. ii) R.B. BansailalAbirchand Spinning and…

M/S. MAINAK NIRMAN PVT. LTD., ,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, SILIGURI , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1618/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…not in connection with any work done by the recipient for the assessee, the same cannot be allowed to be deducted "Vijay Kumar Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 332 (MAD), Vishnu agencies (P) Ltd Vs CIT (1979) 117 ITR 754(Cal), Madura Knitting Co Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764( Mad) The Hon’ble high court of Gauhati observed that where the discount/commission paid by the assessee was without any commercial consideration or business expediency and without any services rendered by the agent, therefore, the same not deductible "Assam pesticide and agro Chemicals Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846( Gau), Herald Advertising agency Vs…

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 23 contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs.42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully follo…

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully fo…

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully fo…

THE WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 1965/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta -ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa-DR
Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

…ges of raw material from the respective plantations to the factory yard.The assessee submitted a comparative chart of agricultural income vis a-vis agricultural expenses. The assessee referred to the case of Vinaykumar Modi (272ITR91) and Madura Knitting Co. (30 ITR 764) . After considering the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee, the FAA held that the assessee had shown expenditure of Rs.32,16,326/- for earning net agricultural income of Rs.1.96 crores. He referred to order of AY 2008-09 and held that the expenses claimed in that year were almost in the same ratio of AY 2007-08, that he had allo…

ITO, WARD - 56(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PKS HOLDINGS, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1677/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1677/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-56(2) -Vs.- M/S. Pks .Holdings Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaifp7778G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Updhay, Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Updhay, AR
Section 88E

…of land. (reliance is placed on the judgments reported as CIT V Calcutta Agency Limited {19ITR 191 (SC)}, Gopinath Vir Bhan V CIT {6 ITR 242}, Vijay Kumar Mills Ltd. V CIT {50 ITR 332}, Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd. V CIT {117 ITR 754}, Madurai Knitting Co. V CIT {30 ITR 764} and Hatz Trust, Simla V CIT {21 ITR 149}. The AO held that the assessee has failed to prove rendering of services by the two ladies who are also wife of the partners. Hence in absence of evidences of rendering of services by the said brokers the expenses of Rs. 66 lakhs was not allowed as it failed to satisfy the test of section 37( 1). 21. On a…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…legation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully fo…

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…legation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully fo…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…ur view in this regard:- ITA Nos. 2182/Kol/06, 57, 1876 & 1846/Kol/07, 196 & 299/Kol/2010 DCIT,Cir-8, Kol Vs. M/s. E I H Ltd 18 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and respectfully fo…

CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT (30 ITR 764) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax