Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(Raj)

134 CTR 237High Court#6248 most cited
18

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

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 80ICSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80IBSection 10CCBSection 44AB

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 Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(Raj)

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

…that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration. Jaipur Electro Pi Ltd, Vs. (Raj.) 134 CTR 237 I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended .... For business' refers to the quantum of expenditure - The adverb 'exclusively has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not quali…

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

…that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration. Jaipur Electro Pi Ltd, Vs. (Raj.) 134 CTR 237 I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended .... For business' refers to the quantum of expenditure - The adverb 'exclusively has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not quali…

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

…that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration. Jaipur Electro Pi Ltd, Vs. (Raj.) 134 CTR 237 I.T.A.Nos.3814/Del/2015, 5420 & 7426/Del/2017 • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended .... For business' refers to the quantum of expenditure - The adverb 'exclusively has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not quali…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. M/S GLAZE TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5337/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 37

…so does not apply to the case of the appellant assessee, as in that case the said company claimed deduction in respect of discount paid to its sister concern on the basis of agreement between them. In the case of M/s. Jaipur Electro Pvt. Limited Vs. CIT (Raj) 134 CTR 237, AO gave a clear finding after discussing each case that payments were not made out of any business expediency and expenditure incurred was not laid out wholly and exclusively for assessee's business. However, in present appeal before me, the AO has not mentioned even a single instance pointing out any name of any party to whom assessee claimed t…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

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

…at the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT(Raj) 134 CTR 237. • The adverb 'wholly' in the phrase 'laid out or expended ....for business' refers to the quantum of expenditure — The adverb 'exclusively' has reference to the object or motive of the act behind the expenditure. Unless such motive is solely for promoting the business, the expenditure will not qualify for deduction CITVs T.S. HajeeMoosa& Co. (Ma…

SHIVALIK VENTURES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

ITA 5407/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Acit Cc-4(2), Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Acit Cc-4(2), M/S Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, .M. K. Road, Plot No. 756, Staney Fernandes Mumbai-400020. Vs. Wadi, D S Babrekar Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aalcs7683R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr), Rajeev Gubgotra Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeals Filed Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR), Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…o contend that the expenses, which are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business alone are deductible. The Ld D.R, by placing reliance on the following observations made by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jaipur Electro P Ltd (134 CTR 237)(Raj.) submitted that the principle that the businessman is the best judge does not affect the duty of the AO to examine as to whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business:- “11. The general principle underlying s. 37(1) of the Act is that an expenditure which is found to have been wholly and exclusi…

KAY DEE INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2069/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 37

…. 8 himself whether the commission said to have been paid to the selling agents or any part thereof is properly deductible under section 37 of the Act. ” The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in their decision in the ease of Jaipur Electro (P) Ind. Vs CIT (Raj.) 134 CTR 237 have held that the doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right, any duty, of the assessing authorities to know whether it was incurred for business purposes and not for the extraneous consideration. Now- a question arises, as to whether given the facts of assessee’s case payment of commission t…

GENOM BIOTECH PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC -40, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 4656 to 4658/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06) ITA No.4661 to 4664/Mum/2014 (Assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10) M/s. Genom Biotech Pvt. ACIT Central Ltd. Vs. Circle-40 907, Filix Building Room No. 653 Opp. Asian Paints Aayakar Bhavan LBS Marg, Bhandup(W) M.K. Road Mumbai-400 078. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5336 to 5342/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10) ACIT Central M/s. Genom Biotech Pvt. Circle-40 Vs. Ltd. Room No. 653 907, Filix Build…

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

FILM LOGIC INDIA P.LATD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD-1) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1007/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Film Logic India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd-1) 16 G, Laxmi Industrial Estate Central Range 7 Vs. Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai Mumbai 400053 Pan - Aaacf5879M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…business. The appellant failed before me to explain as to how the establishment of office was needed during the year under consideration, requiring payment of salaries, staff welfare, telephone, traveling, etc. In the case of Jaipur Electro Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (134 CTR 237), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court have held that the doctrine that the businessman is the best judge of business expediency does not affect the right and duty of the Assessing Officer to know whether expenditure was incurred for business purposes and not for other extraneous consideration. In view of the facts and legal position as discussed abo…

Jaipur Electro (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(Raj) (134 CTR 237) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax