Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. CIT

135 ITR 597High Court1982#8617 most cited

What is Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee fails to furnish necessary details for a claim, the claim can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee has not established that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Also referred to as

Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. CIT · 135 ITR 597 · disallowance of claim · lack of details · business expenditure · onus of proof · failure to establish · wholly and exclusively for business · evidence

Judgments citing Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. CIT

Prajwal Arvind Kamath, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3569/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Prajwal Arvind Dy. Commissioner Of Kamath, 2004, Fiona, Income Tax Circle-3, Vs. Hiranandani Estate Thane. Ghodbunder Road, Patlipada Thane-400607. Pan No. Aiupk5845K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…missed the appeal filed by the assessee. Mrs. Prajwal Arvind Kamath 7 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. It has been held in Seshasayee Brors. Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad.) that where an assessee sets up a claim for a particular deduction in the computation of his income, but is unable to establish necessary facts in this regard, the Department would be justified in disallowing the claim. Also in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), it was held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in or…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-6(1)(2), M/S Aristo Reality R. No. 508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Development Ltd. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 601, Symphony Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan No. Aaacl0593J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Dilip Lakhani, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dilip Lakhani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia, DR
Section 143

…or the assessee’s business, profession or vocation was secondary and was a remote consequence, the expenditure would not come within the exemption provisions. In Seshasayee Brothers Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad.); Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where the details were not furnished by the assessee, the claim can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee had not established that the amount in question was an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. In the Income Tax Act, each year is a self-contained separate period. In CIT…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…ee to claim exemption is on the assessee. Also in Nund & Samont Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), it is held that it is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible. Further, in Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad), it is held that Sharad Kumar Sharf this regard, the department would be justified in disallowing the claim. 7.4 Facts being identical, we follow the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07. We are also guided by the ratio laid down in the decisions narrated at para 7.3 hereinbefore. Thus we confirm the order…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…o establish necessary facts in this regard, the department would be justified in disallowing the claim as held in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), Nund & Samont Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad.). G N Resound India Pvt. Ltd. 6 The burden of prove is limited to primary or initial onus. Once such primary onus is discharged, such burden shifts to the revenue as held in Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Cal), Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 614 (Kar). In the instant case, the appellant has failed to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3743/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…Nor have any details been filed during the appellate state. Only bald assertions were made that the transaction relates to business of the assessee. They have not been backed by any evidence to substantiate the claim. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where details are not furnished by the assessee, the claim could be disallowed on the ground that assessee has not established that amount in question relating to expenditure was laid down wholly and exclusively for the purposes of busses. In CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449 (Delhi), it was held th…

Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3307/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…Nor have any details been filed during the appellate state. Only bald assertions were made that the transaction relates to business of the assessee. They have not been backed by any evidence to substantiate the claim. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where details are not furnished by the assessee, the claim could be disallowed on the ground that assessee has not established that amount in question relating to expenditure was laid down wholly and exclusively for the purposes of busses. In CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449 (Delhi), it was held th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 2997/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…Nor have any details been filed during the appellate state. Only bald assertions were made that the transaction relates to business of the assessee. They have not been backed by any evidence to substantiate the claim. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where details are not furnished by the assessee, the claim could be disallowed on the ground that assessee has not established that amount in question relating to expenditure was laid down wholly and exclusively for the purposes of busses. In CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449 (Delhi), it was held th…

Ashok Mittal vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3764/DEL/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…Nor have any details been filed during the appellate state. Only bald assertions were made that the transaction relates to business of the assessee. They have not been backed by any evidence to substantiate the claim. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where details are not furnished by the assessee, the claim could be disallowed on the ground that assessee has not established that amount in question relating to expenditure was laid down wholly and exclusively for the purposes of busses. In CIT v. Motor General Finance Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 449 (Delhi), it was held th…

The Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Balasore vs. JCIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 417/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 2(9)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(4)

…e order sheet entry dated 14.3.2013. There was no compliance to my above query. Allocation of the Burden of Proof Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 That the onus shifted to the assessee is supported by the following judgments: (i) Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v. C1T 42 ITR 568 (Mad.) (ii) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 268 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191 (SC) (v) United Steel vs Culling to 9 ITR Suppl 20, 35 (HL) (vi) Gopinath vs CIT, 6ITRr 243 (Lah HC) (vii) Hotz v. CIT 21ITR149 (Punj-HC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in A.Raghavamma v. A. Chench…

Sh. Ajay Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 114Section 250Section 271Section 44A

…Apex Court in 267 ITR 381 (SC) sent back the matter to the High Court as certain facts had not been considered. However, the Apex Court did not comment upon the presumption raised under section 114 of the Evidence Act. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. v, CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it was held that where details were not furnished by the assessee, the claim could be disallowed on the ground that assessee had not established the expenditure. In view of the discussions in earlier paragraphs, addition of Rs.6,84,334.00 is made on account of income from undisclosed sources. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate par…

Fundtech India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4508/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Fund Tech India Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Osd) 8(1), Formerly Known As Cash Tech R No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Solutions (India) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 604-605, 6Th Floor, Powai Plaza Mumbai-400020 Hiranandani Complex, Powai Mumbai - 400076 Pan: Aaacs7155D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…e find that the details were furnished by the assessee company before the AO. The same has been extracted at page 9 – 11 of the assessment order by the A.O. In Seshasayee Brothers Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad) and Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 597 (Bom), it has been held that where the details are not furnished by the assessee, the claim can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee had not established that the amount in question was expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. If the object of the undertaken tour is commercial in nature, the expenditur…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Kuntal 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaack6496P Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle 4(2) M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Kuntal बनाम/ M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaack6496P M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri K. Shivaram Shri H.M. Wanare राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2016 20/07/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 36(1)(ii)

…7 onwards by the learned CIT(A) as was explained by the assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2012 with respect to details of foreign travel expenses. The learned CIT(A) duly considered the factual matrix along with the decisions in Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT 135 ITR 597 (Bom), Sheshasayee Brothers vs. CIT 42 ITR 568 (Mad) and Sabal Gar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 46 ITR 978 (All). It is also noted that the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of foreign travel expenses amounting to Rs.5,78,484/- claimed under section 37 of the Act. The comparative figures of assessment year 2008-09 to 2010- 11 were…

Kalpesh Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6774/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. Acit, Circle 4(2) Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Kuntal 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaack6496P Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle 4(2) M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Kuntal बनाम/ M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaack6496P M/S. Kalpesh Synthetics P. Ltd. "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri K. Shivaram Shri H.M. Wanare राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2016 20/07/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 36(1)(ii)

…7 onwards by the learned CIT(A) as was explained by the assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2012 with respect to details of foreign travel expenses. The learned CIT(A) duly considered the factual matrix along with the decisions in Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. CIT 135 ITR 597 (Bom), Sheshasayee Brothers vs. CIT 42 ITR 568 (Mad) and Sabal Gar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 46 ITR 978 (All). It is also noted that the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of foreign travel expenses amounting to Rs.5,78,484/- claimed under section 37 of the Act. The comparative figures of assessment year 2008-09 to 2010- 11 were…