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

M/S.Authentiques Eyewear Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 826/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Authentique Eye The Income Tax Officer, Wear P. Ltd. Row House Ward 4(1), Thane. Vs. No. 1, Opp. Paras Yamaha Centre, Ambadi Cross Road, Vasai Road, Thane- 401202. Pan No. Aaica1157H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…nt nor its authorized representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) on the above dates. Neither any adjournment petition was filed nor any details were submitted. M/s Authentique Eye 4 The Ld. CIT(A), relying on the decision in Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT 86 ITR 439 (SC) and CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), confirmed the said addition of Rs.37,17,321/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that since at both stage (AO and CIT) ex-parte order has been passed, authenticity and genuineness of purchases could not be examined. It is stated by him that goods had b…

Vedangi Ventures, Badlapur vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 564/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Vedangi Ventures, Asst. Commissioner of Income Shop No. 5, Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Raghunath Apartment, Kalyan Ganesh Chowk, Manjarali, Badlapur (West) [PAN : AAHFV6691D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : NONE Respondent By : Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR Date of Hearing : 24-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement :1-02-2019 O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order o…

Mangesh Vasant Parulekar, Raigad vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1336/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1336/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen
Section 143(3)

…t in different hands, for the reasons best known to the appellant. Considering the facts in entirety, the payments made under this head are not allowable in view of the decision 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 C…

DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 1266/Kol/2016, is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 131Section 133(6)

…ese commission agents. He relied on the following judgments:- a) Vishnu Agencies P. Ltd.; Calcutta High Court (117 ITR 823) b) Assam Pesticides and Agro Chemical; Gauhati High Court (1997) (227 ITR 846) c) Lachminarayan Madanlal; Hon’ble Supreme Court (1972) (86 ITR 439) 3.1. On appeal, for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- “7.4. All the commission agents barring one appeared before the AO confirmed about receipt of commission and filed details of services rendered; bills were raised by them including service taxes etc. and assessee made the payments through…

M/S Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 1266/Kol/2016, is allowed

ITA 1266/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 131Section 133(6)

…ese commission agents. He relied on the following judgments:- a) Vishnu Agencies P. Ltd.; Calcutta High Court (117 ITR 823) b) Assam Pesticides and Agro Chemical; Gauhati High Court (1997) (227 ITR 846) c) Lachminarayan Madanlal; Hon’ble Supreme Court (1972) (86 ITR 439) 3.1. On appeal, for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- “7.4. All the commission agents barring one appeared before the AO confirmed about receipt of commission and filed details of services rendered; bills were raised by them including service taxes etc. and assessee made the payments through…

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

…ious decisions held that taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure incurred by the assessee was excessive. The ratio of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases is relied upon :- i) Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439; ii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57; iii) Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madan Lal Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439 held as under :- “ In our opinion, the facts of this ease come within the rule laid down by this court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.…

The DCIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Techno Industries, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1019/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pravin R. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

….1019 /Ahd/2015 Techno Industries vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2011-12 by the assessee on account of commission is not proved. The Assessing Officer accordingly relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439(SC) and disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer also observed that majority of parties have not even confirmed the factum of receipt of commission. The assessee has failed to prove the nexus between its business and the expenses incurred. The particulars of services rendered against commission is not…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Chandra Mats Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1830/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1830/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Chandra Mats Pvt. Ltd., P. No. K-224 & 225, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad PAN : AABCC5846L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख…

Essa I Merchant, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…all the seven years under consideration are, therefore, upheld and these appeals of the revenue are dismissed." 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC). As regards the former judgment, it will be seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that claim of expenditure had to be tested on the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the above proposition and since on the facts of the case, it will be seen that expenditure is duly supported by necessary evidence, the same is eligible claim of deductio…

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…all the seven years under consideration are, therefore, upheld and these appeals of the revenue are dismissed." 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 (SC). As regards the former judgment, it will be seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that claim of expenditure had to be tested on the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the above proposition and since on the facts of the case, it will be seen that expenditure is duly supported by necessary evidence, the same is eligible claim of deductio…

M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Works, Kolkata vs. The DCIT Cir-36, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Shree Bishandas Iron Dcit, Circle- बनाम Works, 4 India Exchange 36,Kolkata / V/S. Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkta-001 [Pan No.Aanfs0164 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurbh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-12-2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 09.04.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2010 For Assessment Year 2008-09. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri Surbh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. Sole Issue Raised By Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,17,47,513 On Account Of Commission Expenses Claimed By The Assessee. 3. Briefly Stated Facts Are That The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Iron & Steel Materials.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…situation of the case.’ The view expressed by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court and that of the Gauhati High Court referred to above, is supported by the view of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Lachminaryan Madan Lal vs.cit [1972] 86 ITR 439. Their Lordships have held as under:- ITA No.1232/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Shree Bishandas Iron Works Vs. DCIT, Cir-36 Kol Page 6 ‘The mere existence of an agreement between teen 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…

M/S. Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…l rendition of services by AE. 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 v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held as follows: ** ** ** Thus, for allowability of this kind of expenditure, condition sine qua non is proof of actual services rendered. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, to which one of us i.e. the Accountant Member is the author of the order, in the case of Dy. CIT v. B Fouress (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 847 & 848 (Bang.) of…

DCIT, Cir-49, Kolkata vs. M/S Nimbus Industries, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 859/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 859/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-49, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Nimbus Industries [Pan: Aaefn 1081 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CIT
Section 2

…ency of the business is to be viewed from the point of view of the businessman and not from the point of view of the revenue. 2.9.7. The ld AO relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madanlal vs CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 439 (SC) to justify his action of disallowing the commission. In the facts before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the assessee firm mad repayment of commission to another firm which was not at all in existence when the commission agreement was entered into. Moreover, in the payee firm , the minor children and spouse of the partners of the payer firm (ie asses…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ication for purchases made from hawala parties as genuine, sales made against such purchases? etc., are concerned, in this regard 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, inter-alia, 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 I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the ass…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Safran Engineering Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 451/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhaotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…actual rendition of services by AE. 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:......... Thus, for allowability of this kind of expenditure, condition sine qua non is proof of actual services rendered. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, to which one of us i.e. the Accountant Member is the author of the order, in the case of M/s.B Fouress Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.847 & 847/Bang/2014 da…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1137/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1133/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Gigaplex Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1132/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Alok Joshi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जे” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA NO.1132, 1133/Mum/2016 And ITA No.1137/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2006-07) Gigaplex Estate Pvt Ltd., Dy.Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as B Raheja Tax, OSD-II, Central Range -7, Builders Pvt Ltd), Aayakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ Plot No.C-30, G Block, M K Road, Opp SIDBI Bank, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (Est), Mumbai-400051 (अऩी…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…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 WD 2(1), Mumbai vs. Accord Associates, Ulhasnagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5445/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. M/S. Accord Associates, Ward 2(1), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, C/O Shri Kanayalal G. Bhatia, 8Th Floor, Sona Apartment, Mohan Plazza, Wayle Nagar, Khadkpada, Kalyan(W) Uhasnagar – 421 001 Pin.No.421 301 Pan: Aanfa 6992 L

For Appellant: Shri Suresh OtwaniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen
Section 147

…ods must have come from grey market, therefore, under such circumstances, the chances of purchase cost being inflated could not be ruled out. Therefore, in principle the judgment of Hon'ble SC is relied upon i.e. in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. CIT 86 ITR 439(SC), wherein held that even if there is an agreement between assessee and agents for payment, that does not bind Income tax officer to allow the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the business. (V) The AR has given the GP ratio for A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 @ 15.46%, 17.25%1 15.16% and 16.49% respectivel…