Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT

86 ITR 439Supreme Court of India1972#1180 most cited

What is Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT authority for?

Even with an existing agreement, the deductibility of an amount claimed as an expenditure, such as commission, must be decided based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, to ascertain if it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

96

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT · 86 ITR 439 · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · commission payment · wholly and exclusively for business · facts and circumstances · expenditure deductibility · agreement for expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 37Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 80ICSection 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT

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

…eration of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genuineness of any payment like royalty even if such payment was made after obtaining permission from RBI CIT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(1), Indore vs. Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore

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

ITA 51/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44A

…a Bakliwal, have been paid for research and advising into the business transactions. The Ld. AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of services rendered by payees and applying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lachminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439, McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, disallowed the deduction. 8. During first-appellate proceeding, the assessee made a detailed submission to Ld. CIT(A). The assessee also invoked Rule 46A and submitted several additional-evidences, the details of which are mentioned by Ld. CIT(A) in the form of a lon…

Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT Corporate Range 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2336/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…of the parties to whom such payments have been made. This precluded the AO from verifying the veracity of the claim of the appellant. In similar situations where payment of commission is involved, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lachminarayan Madan Lal, 86 ITR 439 has held that Although there might be such an agreement in existence and the payments might have been made, it was still open to the Income-tax Officer to consider the relevant factors and determine for himself whether the commission said to have been made to the selling agents or any part 7 I.T.A. Nos.2334-2336/Chny/17 thereof was properly dedu…

Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT Corporate Range 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2335/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…of the parties to whom such payments have been made. This precluded the AO from verifying the veracity of the claim of the appellant. In similar situations where payment of commission is involved, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lachminarayan Madan Lal, 86 ITR 439 has held that Although there might be such an agreement in existence and the payments might have been made, it was still open to the Income-tax Officer to consider the relevant factors and determine for himself whether the commission said to have been made to the selling agents or any part 7 I.T.A. Nos.2334-2336/Chny/17 thereof was properly dedu…

Empee Distilleries Ltd., Chennai vs. Addl. CIT Corporate Range 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 9-1-2015 insofar as it pertains to the findings recorded against the assessee is hereby quashed

ITA 2334/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2334, 2335 & 2336/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Empee Tower, No. 59, Harris Road, Vs. Income Tax, Company Range Ii, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Chennai Presently Corporate [Pan:Aaace1687N] Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Raveendra Benakatti, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Dated 28.07.2017, Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since The Facts Are Identical & Common Issues Have Been Raised, All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Common Grounds: 1. The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 In I.T.A.No.20/2010-11/Cit(A)-9 For The Above

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raveendra Benakatti, JCIT
Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…of the parties to whom such payments have been made. This precluded the AO from verifying the veracity of the claim of the appellant. In similar situations where payment of commission is involved, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lachminarayan Madan Lal, 86 ITR 439 has held that Although there might be such an agreement in existence and the payments might have been made, it was still open to the Income-tax Officer to consider the relevant factors and determine for himself whether the commission said to have been made to the selling agents or any part 7 I.T.A. Nos.2334-2336/Chny/17 thereof was properly dedu…

Sarika Amit Sanap, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 131

…f the revenue on the ground that the said company was a penny stock and its trading volume/share prices had been rigged by the entry providers. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (86 ITR 439) (SC) wherein it was held even if there was an agreement between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts, assuming there was such payment, that did not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee‟s business. 7 Saika A. Sanap A.Y. 2015-16 8. In the presen…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…ransaction as genuine. Similarly creating a paper trail through the contract notes is also immaterial when the transactions are collusive in nature. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lai Vs.CIT (86 ITR 439)wherein it was held that even if there was an agreement between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts, assuming there was such payment, that did not bind the Income-Tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee‟s business. In this case, the Supreme Court inter aha, obser…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat vs. M/S. Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 57/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

….Y. was due to reduced finance charges and depreciation. (xiii) The AO rejected the appellant's contention of commission payments proof, TDS deducted on the same by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madanlal Vs CIT 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held that mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of commission does not bind the ITO to hold that the payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. It is open to the AO to consider relevant factors and determine whether the commission said to have been paid is pro…

Shree Durga Syntex Private Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 29/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(va)

….Y. was due to reduced finance charges and depreciation. (xiii) The AO rejected the appellant's contention of commission payments proof, TDS deducted on the same by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madanlal Vs CIT 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held that mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of commission does not bind the ITO to hold that the payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. It is open to the AO to consider relevant factors and determine whether the commission said to have been paid is pro…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)

…eld that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s 37(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee and not on the Department. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Lakshminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 and in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 63 ITR 57, has held that the taxing authorities have right to consider whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee was excessive. 5.15 it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was able to harvest GP @ 6.26% in A Yr 2013-14, from same business, by same management, as against GP…

Ajay Verma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3950/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3950/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ajay Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-75, 1St Floor, Preet Vihar, Ward-59(3), Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpv0772H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…t the expenses had been incurred for the purposes of business. 16. Regarding the payment by cheque and deduction of TDS, the ld. CIT (A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held as under: “The question whether an amount claimed as an expenditure was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business has to be decided on the facts and in the light of the circumstances in each case. The mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certa…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Maha Hydraulics Pvt Ltd., Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 907/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.907/Chny/2016 धनिाजरण वर्ज Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Maha Hydraulics Private Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Vs. Plot No.F-62, Sipcot Industrial Chennai – 600 034. Complex, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 105 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aaccm 4090R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan:

For Appellant: Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate

…on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umakant B. Agarwal reported in [2015] 57 Taxmann.com 137 as also in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC) 5. In reply, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the nature of the services and the rendering of the services has been categorically qualified by the assessee as also by M/s. Divine Alloys and Power Company Limited as “referral business”. It was a submission that the amount of commission paid was the “referral commission”. I…

ITO, Ward 3 (2), Kalyan vs. Paras Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6255/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 143(1)Section 147

…hrough banking channels, justification for purchases made from hawala parties as genuine, sales made against such purchases, etc., I would like to place the reliance on finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC), wherein it is held that even if there is an agreement, between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, that does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee's business. In this case, the Supreme Co…

ITO, Ward 3 (2), Kalyan vs. Paras Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6254/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 143(1)Section 147

…hrough banking channels, justification for purchases made from hawala parties as genuine, sales made against such purchases, etc., I would like to place the reliance on finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC), wherein it is held that even if there is an agreement, between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, that does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee's business. In this case, the Supreme Co…

ITO -Ward - 3 (4), Kalyan vs. Valji R. Mange, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6253/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer, Ward -3(4) V. Shri Valji R. Mange 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Prop. Of M/S. Kamal Chem Industries A-304, Om Gopal Krishna Murbad Road Kelkar Cross Road Kalyan(W) - 421 301 Dombivli (E) – 421 201 Pan: Agepm4124B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 143(1)Section 147

…hrough banking channels, justification for purchases made from hawala parties as genuine, sales made against such purchases, etc., I would like to place the reliance on finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439 (Supreme Court), wherein it is held that even if there is an agreement, between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, that does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee's business. In this case, the…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax-Range-1, Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…ave made payment to them and has also deducted TDS and its necessary deposit to the Government account has been completed. The onus is on the assesse to prove these statements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of LaxminarayanMadanLalVs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 has held that mere existence of agreement between the assessee and its agent does not prove the genuineness of the transactions in a particular case. It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the Revenue Authorities is bound to look into the genuineness of the transaction in each of the case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ca…

Joint.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -I, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…ave made payment to them and has also deducted TDS and its necessary deposit to the Government account has been completed. The onus is on the assesse to prove these statements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of LaxminarayanMadanLalVs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 has held that mere existence of agreement between the assessee and its agent does not prove the genuineness of the transactions in a particular case. It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the Revenue Authorities is bound to look into the genuineness of the transaction in each of the case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the ca…

Sri Janarthana Spinning Mills, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 366/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, C.A. for S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vidya Ramachandan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

…wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’The onus lies on the assessee to prove that the services are actually rendered by the AE. In this context, we may point out to the decision in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Madanlal vs. CIT (86 ITR 439) wherein it was held as follows The mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the assessee's business. Thus, for allowability…

M/S Steel Kraft India, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 615/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Steel Craft India, vs. Income Tax Officer, Kutbi Nangal, Ward 2, G.T. Road, Batala Batala [PAN: ABAFS 1276R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.07.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar ('CIT (A)' for short) dated 02.06.2017, dismissing t…

Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1052/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Avlon Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Vishwakarma Chambers, . Of Income Tax, Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Circle-1, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aacca 0034 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari – CAFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.DR
Section 131

…e because deduction could be allowed if these expenditure laid out or incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee. The Assessing Officer relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madanlal Vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 in which it was held as under : “The mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purpose of the assessee’s business. Although there might…