D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals v. CIT(Gau)

227 ITR 846High Court1997#3609 most cited

What is D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals v. CIT(Gau) authority for?

The onus is on the assessee to prove that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The mere existence of a contract does not automatically make an expenditure deductible.

33

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

Also referred to as

Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals v. CIT · Section 37 · wholly and exclusively for business · business expenditure · burden of proof · contract expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80IBSection 10CCBSection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(4)section 153a proceedingsexplanation to section 37section 158bdgoing concernprohibited by lawbusiness expediencyinitial assessment yearsection 246section 30section 80icsection 246a

Judgments citing D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals v. CIT(Gau)

SHREE VEER BUILDBEST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3) NOW WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 892/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.892/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ 302, Swapneel – 5 Ward-4(1)(1) Commerce Six Road Ahmedabad- 380 015 V/S. Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakcs 8358 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 21/09/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28/03/2014 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. Shree Veer Buildbest Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…anies Act, 1956, and under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with no qualifications in the audit report to justify the additions made by the AO. 9.1. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee refuted the AO’s reliance on the case of Assam Pesticides v. CIT (227 ITR 846), pointing out significant differences in the facts of both cases. In the case relied upon by the AO, the expenses were proved to be sham. The assessee further cited judicial pronouncements in case of Rajat Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 48 (Ind.) and DCIT v. Surface Finishing Equipment (2003) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodhpur) to support their cont…

TRUTH INDIA HOUSING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Truth India Income Tax Officer Housing Pvt. Ltd. Ward-25(4) 903A, Indra Prakash Vs. New Delhi Building Barakhama Road New Delhi-110001 PAN-AADCT8784A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Respondent by Shri Anuj Gard, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi [“…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19 (1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Addition of Rs. 5,08,43,220/-] Having regard to the nature of addit…

SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Addition of Rs. 5,08,43,220/-] Having regard to the nature of addit…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…836, Siddho Mai & Sons Vs ITO (Del) 122 ITR 839. • Burden on assessee to prove that expenses were laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bom) 137 ITR 58, Assamm Pesticides & Agro Chemicals Vs. CIT (Gau) 227 ITR 846 • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Jayshree Tax & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 272 ITR 193,CIT Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. [Addition of Rs. 5,08,43,220/-] Having regard to the nature of addit…

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ve test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. It all depends on the facts and circumstances / situations of the case as held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh). In the case of CIT Vis Golcha Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. 227 ITR 391 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. 9 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.11 Further, the appellant has submitted that it has declared an NP rat…

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri C.P. Meena (Addl.CIT) a
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ve test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. It all depends on the facts and circumstances / situations of the case as held by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh). In the case of CIT Vs Golcha properties (Pvt.) Ltd. 227 ITR 301 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. 5.11 Further, the appellant has submitted that it has declared a GP rate of 11.97%and an NP rate of 8.70% for the assessme…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…sed in 37 relates to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business. Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 33 of 41 CIT(Bom) 137 ITR 58; Assam Pesticides &Agro Chemicals Vs CIT(Gau) 227 ITR 846. • The mere fact that payment has been made under contract or agreement is not conclusive that the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs CIT(Cal) 272 ITR 193 CITVs Premier Breweries Ltd. (Ker) 279 ITR 51. • Transfer of shares of assessee company — Loss incurred due to personal…

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…hom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before the due date, which is against the…

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…hom paid and the purpose of business u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The once is on the assessee to establish that a particular expenditure correctly incurred for business purpose and justified. Reliance is placed on 63 ITR 57 (SC), 73 ITR 634 (SC), 117 ITR 945 (BOM), 227 ITR 846 (Gau.) and 249 ITR 401 (Oris.). (3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in treating land restoration expenses to the extent of Rs.42,63,517/- as Revenue expenditure despite the same being capital expenditure. (4) The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow Rs.4,66,007/- being employee's contribute if it is paid before the due date, which is against the…

TECH PACIFIC INDIA LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD -II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 8794/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh (Account Member ) & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner Of (Now Known As Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, Osd Ii, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan No. Aabct1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar , D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)

…ied on the following decisions to conclude that various courts have held that commission payments were to be disallowed if there was no evidence of services being rendered or if there was no commercial consideration: Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT - 227 ITR 846 (Gau.), (a) Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pr. Ltd. -151 ITR 636 (Punj.) b) (c) Schneider Electric India Ltd vs. CIT - 304 ITR 360 (Del) The Appellant submits that in the first case referred to above, the Court has held that commission paid was liable to be disallowed primarily due to the fact that the payments were made by a Company or a firm to ei…

VAYUDOOT SECURITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8089/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17 Vayudoot Security Services Private Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-26(1), 2209, Kucha Alam Chand, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacv4575E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th July, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-19, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, They All Relate To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,89,71,528/- Out Of ‘Salaries, Wages & Bonus’ & Rs.2,65,48,736/- Out Of ‘Gift & Business Promotion Expenses.’

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 37(1)

…ex Court that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s 37(1), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Guhawati in the case of Assam Pesticides and Agro Chemical vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 846 held that it cannot be said that even if the taxpayer does not produce any evidence in support of the claim for allowance, the ITO himself independently is to collect evidence and decide that the allowance claimed is baseless having regard to the legitimate business needs of the assessee. It is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a par…

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]

…served 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 ITO (1991) 39TTJ (Del Trib) 34, ITO Vs Autometres Ltd . (1991) 39TTJ (Del Trib) 260. Where the assessee had not able to establish that the payment of commission was for commercial expediency, it had also not been able to prove that commission was paid to alleged for service rendered by them hence commission pai…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHREE AGENCIES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…directors. It shows that the vehicles are registered in the personal name of the directors and depreciation and other incidental expenses claimed by the assessee are to be disallowed. It is held in the case of Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 846 (Gau) that mere payment by itself would not entitle an assessee to deduction of an expenditure, unless the same was proved to be paid for commercial consideration. The onus of the proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. Further, it was held in case of Kalpaka Tourist Home (P) Ltd vs CIT [1998] 172 ITR 364 (Ker) that the deduction und…

DCIT, CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 1266/Kol/2016, is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 131Section 133(6)

…e ground that the assessee could not prove the services rendered by these commission agents. He relied on the following judgments:- a) Vishnu Agencies P. Ltd.; Calcutta High Court (117 ITR 823) b) Assam Pesticides and Agro Chemical; Gauhati High Court (1997) (227 ITR 846) c) Lachminarayan Madanlal; Hon’ble Supreme Court (1972) (86 ITR 439) 3.1. On appeal, for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- “7.4. All the commission agents barring one appeared before the AO confirmed about receipt of commission and filed details of services rendered; bills were raised by th…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2