Newton Studio Ltd. v. CIT

28 ITR 378High Court1955#13918 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Newton Studio Ltd. v. CIT

Shri Rampriya Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1946/HYD/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1946/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Shri Rampriya Developers Vs. Dy. C. I. T. (P) Ltd Circle 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aajcs6629P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ency. Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raman & Raman 7 ITR 345 (Mad) also rather helps to the Revenue. Similarly, the other Judgments in the case of Eastern Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 20 ITR 1 (SC), Newtone Studios Ltd. vs. CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 65 ITR 1 (Cal.) and the judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Narasivsdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 127, ITR 221.'The other judgments cited by the A.R. are decided by the Courts considering the facts of the respective cases. Thus, the facts of those judgments are not similar t…

Royal Seeds & Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 956/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.956/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…count of 5% estimation of income on sales. 13. We note that assessee has incurred administrative expenses for the purpose of business; to the tune of Rs. 31,84,849/- therefore, the expenses should be allowed. We note that in the case of Newtone Studios Ltd. (28 ITR 378), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held as under: “…… In order that an expenditure may be one incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning, it is sufficient if it was incurred voluntarily and on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business………..” The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh…

Freewings Power & Infra Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…as to be considered from the point of view of a businessman and it was not open to the Tribunal to adopt a subjective standard with regard to the proper remuneration which should be paid to its directors. Sir, in the case of Newtone Studios Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 28 ITR 378 (Mad), that the Income-tax. Officer should not take an armchair view of the management of the company and decide in his opinion what was the reasonable remuneration for a director and disallow such part of the remuneration as he considered excessive or unreasonable, What applies to the Income-tax Officer equally applies to the appellate authoritie…

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

…e shoes of businessman to decide whether a particular payment if reasonable or not and submitted that it is not the job of the AO to check the commercial expediency of a transaction by relying on the following decisions namely (i) The Newton Studio Ltd Vs CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), (ii) Raman and Raman Ltd Vs CIT 46 ITR 400(Mad), (iii) CIT Vs Walchand & Co Pvt Ltd 65 ITR381 SC, (iv) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dal…

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

…e shoes of businessman to decide whether a particular payment if reasonable or not and submitted that it is not the job of the AO to check the commercial expediency of a transaction by relying on the following decisions namely (i) The Newton Studio Ltd Vs CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), (ii) Raman and Raman Ltd Vs CIT 46 ITR 400(Mad), (iii) CIT Vs Walchand & Co Pvt Ltd 65 ITR381 SC, (iv) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dal…

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

…e shoes of businessman to decide whether a particular payment if reasonable or not and submitted that it is not the job of the AO to check the commercial expediency of a transaction by relying on the following decisions namely (i) The Newton Studio Ltd Vs CIT 28 ITR 378 (Mad), (ii) Raman and Raman Ltd Vs CIT 46 ITR 400(Mad), (iii) CIT Vs Walchand & Co Pvt Ltd 65 ITR381 SC, (iv) JK Woollen Manufacture Vs CIT 72 ITR 612 SC, (v) CIT Vs Dhanrajgiri Raja Narasingirji 91 ITR 544 SC, (vi) Sasoon J.David and Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 118 ITR 261 SC, (vii) CIT Vs National Rayon Commercial Co Ltd 193 ITR 744 Bom, (viii) CIT Vs Dal…

Second Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2412/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiay. 2009-10 M/S Second Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-8(1), Flat No. N, Sagar Apartment, Vs. New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 11 001 (Pan: Aabcs6609R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. RanoFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…d to Mr. Sushil Pandit (director) by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2) of the Act. IV. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Abbas Wazir (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 77 (AII).wherein the High Court held as under: "In Newtone Studios Ltd. v. CiT [1955J 28 ITR 378 (Mad), it was observed that the remuneration paid to a director should not be rejected by the Assessing Officer on any subjective standard of reasonableness, and that so long as the reality of the payment was not challenged and no allegation was made that the payment was dictated by other than business considerations, the deductibility of the exp…

Newton Studio Ltd. v. CIT (28 ITR 378) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax