CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd. v. CIT

193 ITR 744High Court1992#12374 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)(iv)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 2(24)(x)Section 253(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd. v. CIT

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

…is purely ad hoc which is not sustainable in view of the following judicial decisions: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 775(SC)] + Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288(SC)] CIT vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. [(1992) 193 ITR 744 (Bom 1TO vs. Super Chemicals Distributors [(2005) 1 SOT 102 (Del)] S.A. Builders vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] Further the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of JCIT vs. Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. (in 1.T.A No. 3735/DEL/99) held that no addition can be made on surmises and conjectures. DCIT VS. SOPHISTICATED MARBLES & GRANITE INDUSTRIES [(2010) 3 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., (AS A SUCCESSOR TO SOKTAS INDIA PVT.LTD,.,), KOLHAPUR

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.206/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Soktas India Private Income Tax, Cicle-1, V Limited, Plot No.T-8, Kolhapur. S Kagal Five Star, M.I.D.C, Kolhapur – 416003. Pan: Aakcs 5899 J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…Submission of Ld.AR: 6. Ld.AR filed paper book. Regarding Commission payments, Ld.AR repeated the submission which was made before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd 193 ITR 744(Bom). ITA No.206/PUN/2019 & C.O.No.23/PUN/2021 Soktas India Private Limited (Grasim Industries Limited) 6.1 Regarding the grounds raised in the cross objection the Ld.AR relied on following case laws :  Peter Vaz vs CIT 436ITR 616(Bom)  Small Industries development Bank of India Ltd Vs DCIT  PCIT v Nitin Spinners Ltd 283taxman2(SC)  PCIT v…

CONTOUR ENTERTAINMENT INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2416/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2416/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Contour Entertainment Inc. बिधम/ Dcit(It) 2(1)(1) C/O Rashmi Modi & Co. Air Building, Mumbai. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 7, Vallabhji Kanji Building, 173/175, Princess Street, Opp. Corporation Bank, Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc3711D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri V. Sreekar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.01.2017 Passed To Pursuant Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp' For Short) U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal As Read: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)

Section 144Section 144C(13)

…the payment is not a revenue expenditure. In the absence of the same, A.O. was Justified in following the principles (though not cited) laid down in the case of Jaipur Electro Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT 223 ITR 535 (Raj.) and CIT vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 (Born.) for disallowing a part of the expenditure. 3.2.12 In the case Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. Vs. CII 272 hR 193 (Cal), It has been held that even if the payment is made under a contract or agreement, it is not allowable if the expenditure is not incurred and exclusively for the purpose of business. In the case at hand, the appellant has fai…

GIGAPLEX ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…(iii) CIT Vs Walchand & Co Pvt Ltd 65 ITR381 SC, (iv) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (B) Ltd 254 ITR 377 (Del). On the reasonability of the payment, the ld AR argued that value as per registered valuer’s report by the assessee was Rs.1,25,72,94,500/- whereas as per DVO it was Rs.1,23,90,08,000/- which was almost same and there was not much difference and therefore reasonability of the same cannot…

GIGAPLEX ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

GIGAPLEX ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

M/S ISPAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1738/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)

…2) Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) 3) Davidson of India P.Ltd v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 344 (Cal). 4) CIT v. Dhnarigiri Raja Narsingiriji 91 ITR 544(SC) 5) CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd 254 ITR 377, and 6) CIT v. National Rayan Commercial Co. Ltd 193 ITR 744 8. The CIT-A has not accepted the submissions of assessee for the reason that the assessee in most of cases sold the goods directly to the sale party by not taking any delivery and confirmed the addition made by the AO for non submission of confirmation from third party. 9. Before us the ld.AR of the assessee submits that the AO examined such i…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…K Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT: 72 ITR 612(SC) • CIT v. Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd.: 82 ITR 166 (SC) • CIT Vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 • Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT U.P.: 118 ITR 200 (SC) • CIT Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. 193 ITR 744 • S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT : 288 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT V. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del) • CIT vs. Padmani Packaging (P) Ltd. : 155 Taxmann 268 (Del) • CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Ltd.: 331 ITR 401 (P&H) (FB) • CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011(Del HC) • CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) • CIT…