MHATRE ENGINEERING P.LD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 10(3)(3), MUMBAI
The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 2187/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)
…or excessiveness of a particular payment for the purposes of section 40A(2)(a), it is essential that one should keep in mind the relevant consideration. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Skyline Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 373 (MP), Kumar Engineers vs CIT 223 ITR 18, 22 (P &H), K.R. Motilal vs CIT 240 ITR 810 (Mad.), United Exports vs ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 549 (Del.), CIT vs Jyoti Industries (2011) 330 ITR 573 (P &H). In the present appeal, since the Assessing Officer himself allowed more remuneration in Assessment year 2011-12, therefore, there is no justification to make the disallowance. This ground of the…