J.J. Enterprises v. CIT

254 ITR 216Supreme Court of India2002#2591 most cited

What is J.J. Enterprises v. CIT authority for?

Disallowances of expenses cannot be made based on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated statements of higher expenses; tangible evidence is required to justify additions.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

J.J. Enterprises v. CIT · 254 ITR 216 · disallowance of expenses · mere suspicion · tangible evidence · commercial expediency · assessment · Assessing Officer

Sections most often in play

Section 10AASection 195Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80IA(8)Section 90

Issues it is cited on

section 256(2)section 80ia(8)section 9(1)(vii)(b)section 195(2)section 40a(2)(a)section 256fees for included servicessection 90(2)commercial expediencybusiness connectionsection 9(1)(vii)interest u/s 234b

Judgments citing J.J. Enterprises v. CIT

DCIT 1(1), Indore vs. M/S Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT 1(1) M/s. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) PAN: AABCN8230F Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri S.S. Solanki, AR Date of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.09.2020 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-III Indore fo…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…82) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. ii. Sonic Biochem Extraction P. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 8136, 8138 & 8137/Mum/2011. iii. Sanghi Brothers (India) P. Ltd. vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 286/Ind/2011 iv. J. J. Enterprises vs. CIT, reported in 254 ITR 216 (SC) v. Friends Clearing Agency P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 332 ITR 269 16. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following observation: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. On perusal of the profit and loss account filed by the ap…

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…82) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. ii. Sonic Biochem Extraction P. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 8136, 8138 & 8137/Mum/2011. iii. Sanghi Brothers (India) P. Ltd. vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 286/Ind/2011 iv. J. J. Enterprises vs. CIT, reported in 254 ITR 216 (SC) v. Friends Clearing Agency P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 332 ITR 269 16. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following observation: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. On perusal of the profit and loss account filed by the ap…

DCIT Central-1, Indore vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…82) (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. ii. Sonic Biochem Extraction P. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 8136, 8138 & 8137/Mum/2011. iii. Sanghi Brothers (India) P. Ltd. vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No. 286/Ind/2011 iv. J. J. Enterprises vs. CIT, reported in 254 ITR 216 (SC) v. Friends Clearing Agency P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 332 ITR 269 16. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following observation: “4.2.1 I have considered the facts of the case, plea raised by the appellant and findings of the AO. On perusal of the profit and loss account filed by the ap…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 01, Varanasi vs. M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Chandauli

ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…n be made on mere suspicion. Keeping in view, the ratio laid down by the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-I vs. M/s S.T. Advari Sc. Company [ITA No. 425 of 2012] & by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), the disallowances made by the AO cannot be sustained. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the judicial pronouncements, the additions made by the AO u/s 69C is hereby deleted. This ground is allowed.” 4d. With respect to the addition of Rs. 45,36,423/- made by the AO on account of unexplained purchases be…

Nirmal Kumar Mogra, Bangalore vs. The ACIT, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1058/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…not sustainable.” controverted by the Revenue, the sustenance of disallowance of purchase to the extent of 2.5% on adhoc basis without any reasoning is also not legally correct. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J.Enterprises v. CIT reported in 254 ITR 216 (SC) had held as follows:- “In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition was unsustainable because it had been made “on the basis of pure guess work”. The Revenue moved the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the High Court called for a reference on the basis that the question was a question of…

Sathian Kumaresan, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 545/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 545/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sathian Kumaresan Deputy Commissioner of No. 33A, Rajaram Street, v. Income Tax, Central Circle - Vivekandha Nagar, Nesapakkam, 2(2), 1st Floor Investigation Building, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Tamilnadu – 600 078. No. 46 (Old No. 108), Mahatma [PAN: AMLPK-8272-B] Gandhi Road, Chennai. (अपीलाथ…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8286/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…reliance on the following decisions: • CIT vs J.K. Synthetics Limited [2009] 309 ITR 371 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi) • Climate Systems India Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi) • J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC) • Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) • CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) Page 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technol…

DCIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are

ITA 8285/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…reliance on the following decisions: • CIT vs J.K. Synthetics Limited [2009] 309 ITR 371 (Delhi) • CIT vs Sharda Motor Industrial Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 109 (Delhi) • Climate Systems India Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 319 ITR 113 (Delhi) • J.J. Enterprises vs CIT: [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC) • Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs IAC: [1995] 52 TTJ 198 (Del) • CIT vs Aero Club: [2011] 336 ITR 400 (Del) Page 9 of 15 ITA No.8285 & 8286/Del/2019 DCIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. • Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 711 (Ahd) • Vijay C. Kamdar vs ITO [2009] 118 ITD 577 (Mumbai Trib.) • Ador Technol…

ACIT Circle- 14 (1)92), Mumbai vs. M/S Centaurus Group Research (India) P Ltd. (Formerly Known As Transmarket Group Reaserch India Pvt Ltd), Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7889/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

….CIT(A) also observed that it is not the case of the ld. AO that the expenditure debited by the assessee are personal in nature. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT reported in 254 ITR 216 and proceeded to delete the adhoc disallowance made by the ld. AO. Before us none of the categorical findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) had been controverted by the Revenue. It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed earned business income in the form of service charges of Rs.93,93,878/- and same has been assessed as business income by the ld…

Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4159/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80I

…search team. The Ld. AR further submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is totally based on guess work, surmises and conjectures and thus, are liable to be deleted. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in case of J. J Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216. 16. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). As regards Ground No. 15 to 17, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing regards undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuation. 17. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that books of accounts…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 4042/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 80I

…search team. The Ld. AR further submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is totally based on guess work, surmises and conjectures and thus, are liable to be deleted. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision in case of J. J Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216. 16. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). As regards Ground No. 15 to 17, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing regards undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuation. 17. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that books of accounts…

Soni Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jt. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…e, the action of the AO in making ad hoc disallowance and confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is not justified. Hence, ad hoc disallowance is deleted”. (vi) Further reliance is placed on the following few decisions on similar issues- • J J Enterprises Vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) • Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs. ITO 52 ITD 239 • ACIT Vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 112 TTJ 455 In view of above, your honours are therefore humbly requested to please delete the disallowance.” 3. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:- “2.3 I…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7510/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfied otherwise the tests laid down by law.” 34. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) held the disallowance of any expenditure on ad hoc basis not sustainable by returning following findings :- "In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition was unsustainable because it had been made 'on the basis of pure guess work'. The revenue moved the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an…

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

…the expenditure should not come in the way of an expenditure being allowed by way of deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act if it satisfied otherwise the tests laid down by law.” 34. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) held the disallowance of any expenditure on ad hoc basis not sustainable by returning following findings :- "In its principal order, the Tribunal had concluded that the addition was unsustainable because it had been made 'on the basis of pure guess work'. The revenue moved the High Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an…

Rajendra Kumar Kesari, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajendra Kumar Kesari, V. Income Tax Officer, Bharatganj, Allahabad Ward-1(4), Allahabad Pan-Ahlpk4554D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2020

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147

…s not arise and hence the disallowance is uncalled for. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of Algu Singh in ITA No. 91/2018 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216. Hence the learned AR has pleaded that an adhoc disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted. 4. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the AO has verified the record and noted certain specific expenses were not supported by the proper bills and vouchers and the same were also incurred in cash. Therefore, the…

Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6625/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…decisions: a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT, West Bengal, (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 5 I.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 b) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC). c) CIT vs. Ms. Shehnaz Hussain 267 ITR 572 (Del). d) J. J. Enterprises vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 216 (SC). e) Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.5047/Del/2015 dated 27.05.2019). 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly disallowed these expenses as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the expenditure. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Kanpur vs. M/S. Mahavir Ship Brekers, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 622/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2 V. M/S Mahavir Ship Breakers Kanpur 123/388, Fazal Ganj Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aabfm3820B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Gupta, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per T.S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 4/6/2018 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Been Able To Substantiate His Claims During Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Relying On The Submissions & Evidences Filed By The Assessee U/R 46A Which Are Not Supported With Proper & Reliable Circumstantial & Documentary Evidences. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Which Has Been Brought Out In Ita No.622/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Gupta, C.A
Section 143(3)

…ected during assessment proceedings. Such statements would not be sufficient enough to call for any addition. No disallowance can be made on mere suspicion. Keeping in view, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), the disallowances made by the AO cannot be sustained. In view of aforesaid facts and case laws, I am of the opinion that the AO is not justified in making any addition to the amount of sales recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, the total addition of Rs.1,90,40,224/- is deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Shri Ramswaroop Charitable Trust, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

Section 11

…fied. In the present case also the AO has disallowed expenses on adhoc basis without pinpointing any specific defect in bills/ vouchers produced. Due to the reasons outlined above and the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216(SC) and the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT as outlined above, the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained. Even otherwise if an addition has been made in the case of charitable trust the same would be treated as application for charitable purpose. Since the registration u/s 12A of the Act of the appellant trust is restored by Ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S Shri Ramswaroop Charitable Trust, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

Section 11Section 32Section 68

…fied. In the present case also the AO has disallowed expenses on adhoc basis without pinpointing any specific defect in bills/ vouchers produced. Due to the reasons outlined above and the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises vs. CIT 254 ITR 216(SC) and the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT as outlined above, the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained. Even otherwise if an addition has been made in the case of charitable trust the same would be treated as application for charitable purpose. Since the registration u/s 12A of the Act of the appellant trust is restored by Ho…