Girdharilal Goenka v. CIT

179 ITR 122High Court1989#3781 most cited

What is Girdharilal Goenka v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer should exercise discretion under Section 40A(3) by considering business expediency, surrounding circumstances, and the facts of each case, balancing legal requirements with assessee hardship, rather than relying solely on Board circulars.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Girdharilal Goenka v. CIT · 179 ITR 122 · Section 40A(3) · Section 40A · business expediency · genuineness of transaction · discretion of ITO · cash payments · tax evasion · BharatTax

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 6DDSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 1962Section 1965

Issues it is cited on

business expediencysection 40a(3)section 40asection 40income-tax officergenuineness of the transactiontransferpersonbusinesssection 143(3)interesttotal income

Judgments citing Girdharilal Goenka v. CIT

Natesan Krishnamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1672/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1672/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Natesan Krishnamurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/60, Mookathal Street, Non Corporate Ward 9(2) Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 007. [Pan Ancpk 2634B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40A(3)Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1672/CHNY/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014. Natesan Krishnamurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/60, Mookathal Street, Non Corporate Ward 9(2) Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 007. [PAN ANCPK 2634B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Adv अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : M…

Manish Kumar Gupta, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

ITA 1344/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Manish Kumar Gupta V/S. Income Tax Officer, Rainbow Building, Gandhi Ward-2(1), Parman Market, Station Road, Building, 54, G.T. Barakar, Dist. Burdhaman Road, Apkar Garden, Pin 7133 324 Asansol 713304 [Pan No.Afapg 6357 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol Dated 03.08.2011. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-2(1), Asansol U/S 143(3)/144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 05.12.2008 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Shri U. Dagupta, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. At The Outset Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Grounds Of Appeal Filed With The Memorandum Of Appeal Were Not In Concise Form & Therefore These Were Violating The Principle Of Rule 8 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rule, 1963. Hence, These Were Revised. To This Contrary

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Manish Kumar Gupta V/s. Income Tax Officer, Rainbow Building, Gandhi Ward-2(1), Parman Market, Station Road, Building, 54, G.T. Barakar, Dist. Burdhaman Road, Apkar Garden, Pin 7133 324 Asansol 713304 [PAN No.AFAPG 6357 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri U. Dasgupta, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"…

DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Maruti Freight Movers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…dentity of the payee is established a liberal view of compelling and mitigating circumstances should be taken.” The above judgement .also finds support in the judgements of Hasan & Pinjomal vs CIT (1978) 112 ITR 134 (Guj) and Girdharilal Goenka vs CIT (1989) 179 ITR 122 (Cal). It has been held that the object of the provision is to prevent evasion of taxes and not to disallow legitimate expenditure. The circular No.220 (see [1977] 108 ITR (ST) 8), dated May 31, 1977, must be interpreted liberally. It has further been held that the time between the date of bills and the date of payment cannot be a ground to disal…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…e appellant further seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Girdhari Lal Goenka Vs Commissioner of 39 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur Income Tax, reported in 179 ITR 122, wherein their Lordships held as under : “The Income –Tax Officer has to take a pragmatic view of the matter. The Income- Tax Officer should take a practical approach to problem and strike a balance between the direction of law and hardship to the assessee. He should not enmesh himself in technicalities. After all, the object is not to deprive t…

Sri Malay Mondal, Burdwan vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 903/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…ch assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A and reiterated the submissions made before the AO and relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Girdharilal Goenka reported in 179 ITR 122 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Sing reported in 191 ITR 667(SC). The assessee has also raised an alternative plea that the AO did not determine the correct profit on the impugned disallowance, which was made /calculated on the entire purchase cost. The CIT-A was of the view that on the aforesaid decisions of the…

Raj Wines, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6487/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 133Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ot be disallowed. Isn CIT vs Pravin & Co (2005) 274 ITR 534 (Guj), it was held that the practicality of the payment should be judged from the view of the businessmen and not the Assessing Officer. Various courts in the case of Girdharilal Goenka vs ClT (1989) 179 ITR 122 (CaI); Venkata Subba Rao vs ClT (1988) 173 "ITR 340 (AP); CIT vs Dalip Chand & sons (2008) 3011TR 276 (HP); Harshila Chordia vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) have held that the circumstances set out in Rule 6DD and Board Circulars are illustrative and not exhaustive and the AO has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and consideratio…

Shri. C. Ashok Kumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri R. E. Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Inder Solanki, JCIT
Section 40A

…raised three grounds but the only grievance is about disallowance u/s 40A (3) of Rs. 5,12,900/- . 3. Learned AR of the assessee placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Giridharilal Goenka vs. CIT as reported in 179 ITR 122. He also submitted that the payments in question are on account of Licence Fees paid to Government of Karnataka as State Excise of Rs. 446,000/- and Rs. 66900/- as per translated copy of Challans available on pages 9 and 11 of the paper book. He also submitted that these payments are made at State bank of Mysore. Thereafter, he drawn our att…

Pronab Nandy, Hooghly vs. J.C.I.T Range - 1, Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1910/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Additional C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] ITA No. 1910/Kol/2012 : Assessment Year : 2008-09 Pronab Nandy, Jangipara Vs JCIT, Range-1, Chinsura PAN: ADEPN 9894L Hooghly (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) For the Assessee : Shri S. K. Sarkar, A.R. For the Department : Shri Sallong Yaden, Additional C.I.T Date of Hearing : 04.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement :10 .08.2016 ORDER Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM The appeal preferred by the Assessee is arising out of the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata for the…

Indrajit Paul, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2477/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2477/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009)

For Appellant: Shri D.K.De Sarkar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Pande, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता "यायपीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, AM & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2477/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Indrajit Paul, C/o.D.K.De Sarkar Vs. Income Tax Office, & Co., 167/4, Lenin Sarani, Asansol Ward-2(3), 54 Second Floor, Kolkata-700072 g.T.Road, Appear Garden, Asansol-713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AIJPP 9229 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.K.De Sarkar, FCA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri A.K.Pa…

SHI vs. Hakti Transport Sangh, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 7515/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7515/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shivshakti Transport Sangh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ K.B. Amlani C.A., Ward– 1, V. 14 Malkans, Panvel. Lazras Rd., Charai, Thane (W) – 400 602. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abbfs 5473-P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44

…upport, the assessee-firm relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Amar Ginning & Oil Mills v. ITO, (1989) Taxation 93(4)-76(Chd Trib.) 2. ITAT Madras Bench in the case of Taj Trading Co. v. ITO (1989) 35TTJ (Mad-Trib) 296. 3. Girdharila Goenka v. CIT (1989) 179 ITR 122(Cal.) 4. CIT v. Aloo Supply Co. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (Ori) 5. CIT v. Triveniprasad Pannalal (1997) 228 ITR 680 (M.P) 6. CIT v. Ashish Coal Coke Traders (1987) 163 ITR 174 (MP) 7. Navjivan Synthetics v. ACIT (2002) 168 taxation 5 (Ahd-Trib) 8. Western Indian Bakers v. DCIT (2003) 87 ITD 607 (Mum-Trib) 9. Shree Mahaveer Corporation v. ITO (2002) 258…

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das, Midnapore vs. ACIT, Cir-Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 391/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Mr. Nirmal Kumar Das V/S. Acit, Circle-Haldia, W/H/A17, Durgachak Basudevpur, P.O. Housing Estate, P.O. Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Durgachak, Hldia, Purba Purba Medinipur, Pin – Medinipur, Pin. 721602 721602 [Pan No.Acupd 7343 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 40(3)Section 40A(3)

…. The list provided under Rule 6DD is exhaustive and not inclusive. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bagmari Tea Co Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (2002) 121 taxmann. 143 (Cal) after referring to the case of Girdhari Lal Goenka Vs CIT (1989) 179 ITR 122 (Cal) held as under:- ‘With respect we are of the view that when the payment is made in contravention of section 40A(3) though the payment is genuine, that cannot be allowed, because the genuineness of payment is required in all cases but payment by account payee cheque or demand draft is additional requirement under section 40A(3)). If we follo…