How many judgments cite Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT (168 ITR 493), spanning 2011 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 32, Section 40A(2).

Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT

168 ITR 493High Court1987#3869 most cited

What is Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Deduction for commission payments cannot be disallowed solely because summons served on commission agents were returned unserved, especially if the agents may have moved addresses years after the transactions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT · section 133(6) · commission payment deduction · summons unserved · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · trade creditors

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 32 Section 40A(2)Section 43B Section 55(2)(aa)

Issues it is cited on

section 44af section 262 trade creditors inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 non application of mind section 263(1)lack of enquiry section 44a malabar industrial section 194a section 40a

Judgments citing Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ission parties to whom notice u/s 133(6) could not be served. 20. Before us it has been submitted that this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Culcutta High Court in the case of Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1987) 168 ITR 493 (CAL), the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that deduction claimed for amount paid as commission cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the summons served on the parties came back unserved. The relevant extract from the judgement is reproduced herein below: 19. The only fact on which the Tribunal has proceeded is that four years after…

M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd.(Earlier Known As Indian Aluminium Company Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (Earlier Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-8, Kolkatta), Mumbai

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ssion parties to whom notice u/s 133(6) could not be served. 20. Before us it has been submitted that this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Culcutta High Court in the case of Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1987) 168 ITR 493 (CAL), the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that deduction claimed for amount paid as commission cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that the summons served on the parties came back unserved. The relevant extract from the judgement is reproduced herein below: 19. The only fact on which the Tribunal has proceeded is that four years after…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e cheque, that identity is well established. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 48 13.6 The following decisions are eloquent on this issue : i) Addl.CIT, Bihal Vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Patna) ii) Mather & Platt (I) Ltd. V CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal) iii) Addl. CIT V Bahri Bros P.Ltd. 154 ITR 244 iv) Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Gupta V ITO in ITA No. 271/Mum/2017 and in M/s Vision Advertising P Ltd. V CIT, order dated 12.08.2018, in ITA No. 890/Mum/2015 13.7 Then, it has rightly been contended that the AO has passed the order after making all poss…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Gudwala & Sons, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1919/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2015-16 M/s. Gudwala & Sons Assistant Commissioner of Income 1165, 3rd Floor Vs. Tax, Kucha Mahajani Central Circle-04, Delhi-110006 New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAIFG7585N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 12 08 2023 Date of pronouncement: 06 10 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee agai…

Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT(Osdii), Cr-7 (Now DCIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 2268/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

…d stand alone basis justify drawing of adverse inferences as regards the veracity of such claim of expenditure raised by the assessee, is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Cal). In the aforementioned case, one of the ground which had weighed in the minds of the A.O while disallowing the assesses claim of commission expenditure, was that the summons issued under Sec.131 to the agents after expiry of a period of 4 years from the date when the transactions were entered by the assessee with them, were returned back by…

Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 1980/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Hans Raj Dhankar, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2217/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 133Section 139Section 143(3)Section 145Section 244ASection 40

…igh Court decision in case of Babu Lal C Vorama Vs. ITO 282 ITR 251, Bombay High Court decision in case of M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises 372 ITR 619,Gujrat High Court’s decision in case of CIT Vs. M. K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, Mather and Platt India Ltd. Vs. CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal) & M/s Diagnostics Vs. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal). The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Bansal Stripes Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 103/2021 order dated 26/3/2021)). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee during the appellate proceedin…

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1985/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1985/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 155/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1985/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT

Section 153CSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1985/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner of M/s. CMG Steels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, v. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. PAN: AADCC 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & CO No.: 155/CHNY/2017 (in ITA No.1985/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year…

Tech Pacific India Ltd ( Now Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD -II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 8794/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh (Account Member ) & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner Of (Now Known As Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, Osd Ii, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan No. Aabct1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar , D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)

…Tech Pacific India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, Mumbai A.Y(s). 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH (ACCOUNT MEMBER ) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/MUM/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner of (Now known as Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, OSD II, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 PAN No. AABCT1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee…

DCIT, Bhiwani vs. Sh. Amit Kumar Garg, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection by the assessed partly allowed

ITA 2448/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2448/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Amit Kumar Garg, Huda City Centre, Prop. M/S Amit Sales Corporation, Bhiwani Plot No. 2, Near Over Bridge, Circular Road, Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adcpg3789K

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…by account payee cheques and the creditors have duly confirmed the transactions no adverse reference can be drawn. In addition, the ld. AR relied on the following judgments:  Addl. CIT vs Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150 (Pat)  Mather & Platt (India) Ltd vs CIT 168 ITR 493 (Cal)  Addl. CIT Bihar vs Bahri Bros P. Ltd. 154 ITR 244 (Pat)  Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 136 Taxman 213 (Gau)  Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the decision of the ld. CIT (A), that no separate addition on account of unsecured lo…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Rajeev G. Kalathil (Mum) Trib (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012 dated 20/08/2014). 32 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd Payments were made by account payee cheques. This fact would over shadow all other short comings. MATHER & PLATT (INDIA) LTD v. CIT 168 ITR 493 CAL ITO v. KASHMIR IND. PALACE 99 TAXMANN (CHD)(MAG) RAMANANDSAGAR v DCIT 256 ITR 134 (BOM) CIT - I v. NANGALIA FABRICS (P) LTD (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 206 (GUJARAT) CIT v. KORLAY TRADING CO. LTD (1998) 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT v. BASANT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (1999) 238 ITR 680 (CAL) Transaction duly supported by the evidence, no evidence that…

ACIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eastern Distributors, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-34, Kolkata……......……………...................Appellant Vs. M/S. Eastern Distributors Pvt. Ltd…..…….......................…..……………….…...……..................Respondent 3, Mangoe Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aadfe 5901 B]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-34, Kolkata……......……………...................Appellant Vs. M/s. Eastern Distributors Pvt. Ltd…..…….......................…..……………….…...……..................Respondent 3, Mangoe Lane Kolkata – 700 001 [PAN : AADFE 5901 B] Appearances by: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, CIT, Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hear…

Prajwal Arvind Kamath, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3569/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Prajwal Arvind Dy. Commissioner Of Kamath, 2004, Fiona, Income Tax Circle-3, Vs. Hiranandani Estate Thane. Ghodbunder Road, Patlipada Thane-400607. Pan No. Aiupk5845K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ee. Also in Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT it has been held that it is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible. The burden of proof is limited to primary or initial onus. In Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Cal), Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 614 (Kar), it has been held that once such primary onus is discharged, such burden shift to the revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench, in the case of the assessee for the impugned assessment year has restored the matter stating that “It was also submitted that the commission has been paid to these p…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…e his duty to ITO V/s Permanand [2008 25 SOT prove the transaction as bogus: 11] DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014. 9 Payments were made by account Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. vs CIT payee cheques. This fact would 168 ITR 493 Cal over shadow all other short ITO V / s Kashmir Ind. Palace 99 coming. Taxmann (Chd) (Mag) RamanandSagar V/s DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) CIT-I v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 206(Gujarat) CIT V. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT V /s Basant Investment Corporation (1999) 238 ITR 680 8 ITA No.1141/M/18- Md. Riz…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…additional evidence produce in form of bank certificate and E returns sales tax prove the existence of the parties G. Further payments were made by account payee cheques. This fact would over shadoiv all other short coming a. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd.vs CIT 168 ITR 493 Cat Assessee made payments to its two commission agents through bank draft and account payee cheque respectively. During assessment proceedings, summons u/s 131 were issued after four years of aforementioned transaction to each of said commission agents calling upon them to confirm those payments- summons came back with remark 'not known' fi-om p…

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 3707/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ACIT Cir -1 1st floor, Mohan Plaza 3/2 Mile Stone, KalyanMurbad बिधम/ Rd, ShahadKalyan, Kalyan- Wayale Nagar, Vs. 421103. Khadakpada, Kalyan(W)-421301 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAACJ4203H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Haresh P. Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Suman Kumar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 10/01/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28/0…

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Sp RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4179/MUM/2013[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)

…he assessee to cross–examine invalidates the assessment order, therefore, the addition has to be deleted. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v/s CIT, [1987] 168 ITR 493; ii) CIT v/s Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 2 taxmann.com 302; and iii) CIT v/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 188 taxman 70 (Del.). 7. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that neither during the original assessment proce…

Gn Resound India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3100/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Gn Resound India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Office No. 1201, 1202, 1203, Officer-10(3)(4) Vs. 12Th Floor, V. Times Square, Mumbai. Plot No. 3, Sector 15, Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Pan No. Aaccg3984C Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ganesh Rajgopalan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…e Bros Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad.). G N Resound India Pvt. Ltd. 6 The burden of prove is limited to primary or initial onus. Once such primary onus is discharged, such burden shifts to the revenue as held in Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Cal), Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 614 (Kar). In the instant case, the appellant has failed to discharge the primary onus. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs.23,26,873/- made by the AO and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 7. The 2nd ground raised in this appeal is aga…