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

Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5257/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2018AY 2006-07
Section 142(1)

…ersus CIT 330 ITR 104 (Kolkata) for the principle that when the person from whom the documents were seized was not produced for cross examination, the addition cannot be upheld. Further reliance is placed on the decisions reported in JJ Enterprises versus CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC), CIT versus Vikas Electronics (International) P Ltd 204 taxation 148 (Del), and IT versus Bithika Nag and Sumar Nag 204 taxation 255 (ITAT) (Kolkata) for the principle that no addition could be made on exemptions and guesswork. CIT versus Balaji Wires Private Limited 304 ITR 393 (Delhi) is relied upon for the principle that in the absence of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…tton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd 82 ITR 166 [SC] c) Madhav Prasad Jatia Vs. CIT 118 ITR 200 [SC] 8. Reliance was also placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.J. Enterprises Vs. CIT reported at 254 ITR 216 [SC] where, as per the ‘Head Notes’, it has been held as under: “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 7 High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the High Court called for a reference on the b…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…07/03/2017] xii) DCIT Vs Krishna Yadav (2011) 12 taxmann.com 4 (Hyd) 31/03/2011] xiii) CIT Vs Kapil Nagpal (2015) 63 taxmann.com 366 (Del) 11/09/2015] xiv) Assessment cannot be made on presumptions / assumptions / pure guess work i) J.J. Enterprises Vs CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) ii) CIT VsVed Prakash Chaudhary 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi High Court) iii) CIT Vs Lubtec India Ltd. (2009) 311 ITR 175 (Delhi High Court) 26. Thereafter, the CIT(A) went ahead by taking the shelter of moral conduct and that every citizen must cooperate with the Government in tax provisions. In this regard it is stated that income-tax is not le…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…) CIT vs. Walchand & Co.: 65 ITR 381(SC) ii) J.K. Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT: 72 ITR 612 (SC) iii) Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT: 86 ITR 11(SC) iv) CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.: 103 ITR 666 (SC) v) J.J. Enterprises v. CIT: 254 ITR 216 (SC) vi) CIT v. Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd: 254 ITR 377 (Del) vii) S.A. Builders: 288 ITR 1 (SC) According to him further, since the aforesaid party was not related to the appellant in terms of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, there was no scope for the Revenue to examine the reasonableness of the expenditure incurred and to disallow any part thereof f…

Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3443/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3443/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Dsm 249, Dlf Tower, Shivaji Tax, Circle-6(2), Marg, Najafgarh Road, Industrial New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr6921P Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Puneet Chugh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Swain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.01.2016 Of The Ao Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Swain, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C

…(Cal) " Mahendra Oil Cake Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 55 TTJ 711 " Rattah Mechanical Works Ltd. Vs ITO 87 Taxman 288 (Chd.) " Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs IAC 39 TTJ 132(Del.) " CIT Vs Gemi Motors India Ltd. in ITA 130 of 2011 " J.J. Enterprises Vs CIT 254 ITR 216 (SC) " Friends Clearing Agency P. Ltd. Vs CIT 332 ITR 269 (Del) " Nodi Exports Vs ACIT 24 SOT 526 (Del) " ACIT Vs Amtek Auto Ltd. 112 TTJ 455 (Del) " Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITA 52 TTJ 198 (Del) " Ramji Das Modi Vs DCIT 110 Taxman 107 (JP) " ACIT Vs Bateli Tea Co. Ltd. (2003) SOT 72 (Kol) " Continental Seeds & Chemicals Ltd. Vs ACIT (2003)…