Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Southern Sea Foods Limited

215 ITR 176Reported decision#17288 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 194C Section 194C to 194J Section 1962 Section 271(1)(c)Section 28 Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(3)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Southern Sea Foods Limited

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HERITAGE HOSPITAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5629/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 40A(3)

…ing a veneer of credibility by way of stage managed self serving vouchers. 6. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More and decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Southern Sea Foods Ltd 215 ITR 176 and keeping in view the pragmatic functioning of the assessee’s business, the Assessing Officer gave relief to the assessee 50% of expense and disallowed 50% of the expenses which comes to Rs. 43,57,201/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the ld. counsel f…

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1873/PUN/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

Section 40

…in not able to give circumstantial evidence to establish genuineness of the claim which is otherwise sought to be 3 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A) proved by direct evidence or secondary evidence as pronounced in the decision CIT Vs Southern Sea Foods Ltd. 215 ITR 176. Further, the important point to note here is that the assessee is purposely not deducing tax at source on these payments made for purchase of transport from outside even though the assessee was required to do so. This fact has been dealt with by the auditors in the audit report by the auditors and the auditors had qualified in the Audit report s…

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1273/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 14A

….The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. On the other hand, the ld. submits that the assessee claimed misc. expenses of Rs. 3,48,10,000/-. For non furnishing of details, the AO by placing his reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Sea Food Ltd reported in 215 ITR 176 disallowed the same @ 20% i.e Rs.69,62,001/-. He further submits that no defect or adverse inference was reported by the statutory auditor, Internal Auditor and by the tax auditor. The assessee is a public limited company and as such the assessee is liable to incur many petty expenses and for which making every detail is difficult. Considering th…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T. STANES & COMPANY LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 888/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

Section 115J

…ate his claim. Further, the jurisdictional High Court i.e. the Hon'ble Madras High Court have laid down the law with regard to the nature of proof required to substantiate an expenditure in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Southern Sea Foods Limited 215 ITR 176 [1994] (Mad). The CIT(A) ignored the law as enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Jurisdiction High Court. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld.CIT(A), may be cancelled and that of Assessing Officer be restored. 11. On identical facts for the…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. T.STANES AND COMPANY LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, for the AY 2011-12, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and for the AY 2010-11, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.888/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Mr. Vijayaraghavan, Adv

Section 115J