ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arysta Lifescience India Ltd, Mumbai
Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.401/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Arysta Lifescience India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax Range-6(2) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.563, 5Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.559/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Arysta Lifescience India Limited [Formerly Known As Devidayal (Sales) Ltd.] Tax -3(1)(1) बनाम/ [Cin U51420Mh1949Plc007856] Rom No.607, 6Th Floor Vs. 123-124,12Th Floor, Mittal Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd-0557-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :
For Appellant: Dhinal Shah & Shalibhadra Shah, Ld. AR’sFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)
…nted out in the same. Under such a scenario, the adhoc disallowance, as sustained by lower authorities, in our opinion, was not justified particularly in view of the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT [26 ITR 775]. At the same time, the onus to substantiate the same squarely rested on the assessee to demonstrate that the expenses were actually incurred and secondly, the same were incurred for the business purposes of the assessee in terms of Section 37(1). The Ld. AR has placed on record the supporting material in the shape of sample copy of incentive sche…
