Ganapathy & Co. v. CIT

381 ITR 363Supreme Court of India2016#20798 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Ganapathy & Co. v. CIT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/81/2011HC Karnataka01 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…’, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)]. The aforesaid principle was referred to approval in ‘PATNAIK AND CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA’, (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC) and ‘GANAPATHY AND COMPANY VS. THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX BANGALORE’, (2016) 381 ITR 363 (SC). 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, the facts of the case in hand may be examined. In order to claim deduction the assessee has to prove that the payment was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer after considering the statements of Mr.Abdul Razak, Proprietor of M/s…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 2088/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…lowance made by the AO is not justified. The expenditure so incurred by the assessee company was all related to the business and deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapathy & Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 363, at page 372, 1st para, 5th line, is that the main ingredients to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming the deduction u/s. 37(1) is that the expenditure laid out or expended is exclusively for the purpose of business. From the facts submitted by the ARs and seen from the details furnished at the hearing of the assessment, I am of the view tha…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOODRICK GROUP LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 2087/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 40

…lowance made by the AO is not justified. The expenditure so incurred by the assessee company was all related to the business and deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapathy & Co. Vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 363, at page 372, 1st para, 5th line, is that the main ingredients to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming the deduction u/s. 37(1) is that the expenditure laid out or expended is exclusively for the purpose of business. From the facts submitted by the ARs and seen from the details furnished at the hearing of the assessment, I am of the view tha…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TECHNO INDUSTRIES ,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pravin R. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…the case. The rendition of services must be proved as a matter of fact when called for. The fact that the commission expenses were allowed in a different year was found to be irrelevant by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapathy and Company vs. CIT 381 ITR 363 (SC). The mere payment by cheque does not tie down the Assessing Officer to hold that the payment was exclusively for the purposes of business. It is true that the assessee, at times has no command over the parties who have rendered services to push them for compliance of the statutory notices. However at the same time the assessee is expected to…

Ganapathy & Co. v. CIT (381 ITR 363) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax