Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

78 ITR 268Supreme Court of India1970#5567 most cited

What is Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The taxpayer must establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible, or that expenses claimed are reasonable.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT · 78 ITR 268 · SC · onus of proof · reasonableness of expenses · deductible expenses · taxpayer burden · evidence

Judgments citing Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI vs. TETRA TECH INDIA LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4838/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usjcit (Osd) Vs. Tetra Tech India Ltd. Central Circle – 31 1120-21, 11Th Floor, New Delhi – 110 055 Jasola, Tower-A, Jasola District Centre, Pan No. Aaact 4415 H Delhi-110 025 (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…and has rasied the following grounds: 1. “That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the onus of providing the reasonableness of the expenses is on the department ignoring the principle laid down in 78 ITR 268 (SC). 2. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the basis on which the disallowance was ma y the expenses claimed by the assessee in the immediate preceding year ( A.Y. 2014-15). 3. That On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in hold…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7338/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 250Section 28Section 37Section 48

…books of accounts. 7.1. In CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) I9 ITR 191 (SC), it was held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee the claim exemption was on the assessee. In Nund and Samont Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), it is held that it is for the tax payer to establish by evidence that the particular amount is deductible. 5 M/s. Standard Industries Ltd. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the same to the file of the AO to make an assessment afresh as per the provisions of the Act after giving…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI vs. ALLU ARAVIND BABU, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2369/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan Advocate
Section 40A(2)

…l and Co. Ltd (154 ITR 145) 2.4 The learned CII(A) ought to have considered the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs NEPC India Ltd (Mad) 303 ITR 271 and the decision in tire case of Nund & Samonta Co. P. Ltd Vs CIT(SC) 78 ITR 268 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition towards Long Term Capital 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in deciding financial year in which cost of acquisition is to be indexed based on the decision in the case of Manjuta J. Shah which has not accepted by the department and SLP is pending 3.3 The CIT(A) erred in invoking the sub rule (4) of IT Rule 4…

CHEMAROMA DRUG HOUSE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, WARD-18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4473/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 40A(2)(b)

…e at much lower rate. The AO has relied on the following judgements wherein the Courts have held that in case of Payment to relatives, the resonableness has to be proved by the assessee and not the department :- (i) Nund & Samonta Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC), 78 ITR 268. (ii) CIT vs. NEPC India Ltd. (Mad), 303 ITR 271. (iii) CIT vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds (Bom), 261 ITR 258. 5. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to disallow interest paid in excess of 15% and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance against this order. The assessee is in appea…

SEA LINKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(3)

…d to produce these parties before the AO . The AO referred to and relied upon provisions of Section 101, 103 and 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The AO also relied upon decisions in the case of Nund & Samant Company Private Limited v. CIT reported in (1970) 78 ITR 268(SC), Watkings Mayer(Agrico) Private Limited v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 202(P&H), CIT v. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Private Limited (1980) 125 ITR 158(All.), Eastern Sales Private Limited v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 477(Cal.) and CIT v. West Coast Shipping Agencies Private Limited (1981) 127 ITR 442(Ker.) to hold against the assessee. The AO , thus, made additi…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PREMIER LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-3(2)(2), M/S Premier Ltd R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, 58, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai -21 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dadia &
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…s. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), it has been held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee to make a claim is on the assessee. The same ratio has been reiterated in Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC). The burden of proof is limited, to primary or initial onus. One such primary onus is discharged, such burden shifts to revenue. We find that in the instant case the assessee has not discharged the primary onus.-In. view of the above The order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the case is restored to the file of the AO. with a direction to make…

THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(2)(b)

…ent Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1970] 78 ITR 268 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Shatrunjay Diamonds, [2003] 261 ITR 258 (Bom.) and iii) Shree Laxmi Marketing (P) Ltd. V/S Acit, [2008] 119 ITD 390 (Pn.). 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by both the parties. Before we proceed to decide the validity of the disallo…

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

…t Advisors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2015] 376 ITR 183 (Del.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities. He also relied upon the following decisions:– i) Nund & Samont Co. P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1970] 78 ITR 268 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Shatrunjay Diamonds, [2003] 261 ITR 258 (Bom.) and iii) Shree Laxmi Marketing (P) Ltd. V/S Acit, [2008] 119 ITD 390 (Pn.). 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by both the parties. Before we proceed to decide the validity of the disall…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…e to the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), wherein it is held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee to claim exemption is on the assessee. Also in Nund & Samont Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), it is held that it is for the taxpayer to establish by evidence that a particular amount is deductible. Further, in Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 568 (Mad), it is held that Sharad Kumar Sharf this regard, the department would be justified in disallowing the claim. 7.4 Facts being identical, we follow the order of the Co-ordinate…

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

…on in the computation of his income, but is unable to establish necessary facts in this regard, the department would be justified in disallowing the claim as held in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC), Nund & Samont Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), Seshasayee 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 (Ka…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MALABAR HOTELS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 2832/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 40A(2)(a)

…of business and the above issue was subject to discretion of revenue authorities to be exercised under section 40A(2)(a) on the basis of material on record. 2.4. Having regard to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Nund&Samonta Co.P.LtdVs.CIT(SC) 78 ITR 268 wherein it is held that reasonableness has to be proved by assessee and not by Department, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the impugned disallowance made by the AO. 2.5. The CIT(A) failed to note that the excessive expenditure incurred by the assessee reduces the income by equivalent amount and absolves the assessee from payment of taxes to the re…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALABAR HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 2364/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 40A(2)(a)

…of business and the above issue was subject to discretion of revenue authorities to be exercised under section 40A(2)(a) on the basis of material on record. 2.4. Having regard to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Nund&Samonta Co.P.LtdVs.CIT(SC) 78 ITR 268 wherein it is held that reasonableness has to be proved by assessee and not by Department, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the impugned disallowance made by the AO. 2.5. The CIT(A) failed to note that the excessive expenditure incurred by the assessee reduces the income by equivalent amount and absolves the assessee from payment of taxes to the re…

THE BALASORE BHADRAK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 417/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 2(9)Section 263Section 80Section 80P(4)

…f Proof Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 That the onus shifted to the assessee is supported by the following judgments: (i) Seshasayee Bros Ltd. v. C1T 42 ITR 568 (Mad.) (ii) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. 19 ITR 191 (SC) (iii) Nund & Samont Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 268 (SC) (iv) CIT v. Calcutta Agency 19 ITR 191 (SC) (v) United Steel vs Culling to 9 ITR Suppl 20, 35 (HL) (vi) Gopinath vs CIT, 6ITRr 243 (Lah HC) (vii) Hotz v. CIT 21ITR149 (Punj-HC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in A.Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136 that such a shifting of onus is to be seen in the evaluation of evidence. The Hon'ble…

DCIT-AKOLA-CIRCLE, ,, AKOLA vs. SHRI HARMITSINGH BHAGWANSINGH SETHI,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 266/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194CSection 80I

…of index as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.60,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim regarding the value of land as on 01.04.1981 without considering the ratio of the decisions in the case of Nund & Samonta Co. Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 268) and in the case of India Ltd. (303 ITR 271) (Madras High Court) wherein it is held that the reasonableness has to be proved by the assessee and not by the department. 10. The facts of the case are quite similar to the facts of the case in ITA no.526/Nag./2014 for the assessment year 2007–08. There is no need to repeat the same. ISSUE NO.1 TO 3…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PREMIER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1566/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar,DRFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT 3(2)(2) Vs. M/s. Premier Limited 6th Floor, R. No. 674 58 Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAACT5523G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purushottam Kumar,DR Revenue by: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR Date of Hearing : 08/02/2017 Date of pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM These two appeals by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 and 20…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PREMIER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1357/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar,DRFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT 3(2)(2) Vs. M/s. Premier Limited 6th Floor, R. No. 674 58 Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN No. AAACT5523G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purushottam Kumar,DR Revenue by: Shri Jayesh Dedia,AR Date of Hearing : 08/02/2017 Date of pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM These two appeals by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 and 20…

DOLPHIN OFFSHORE SHIPPING LTD,BELAPUR vs. ASST CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6323/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd., Vs. The ACIT, 5(1), LIC Bldg, Plot N. 54, Mumbai Sector II, Belapur-400614 PAN No. AAACP2682G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Date of Hearing : 24/03/2017 Date of pronouncement: 28/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the or…

STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3615/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ks of accounts. 7.1. In CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) I9 ITR 191 (SC), it was held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee the claim exemption was on the assessee. In Nund and 5 Samont Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC), it is held that it is for the tax payer to establish by evidence that the particular amount is deductible. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the same to the file of the AO to make an assessment afresh as per the provisions of the Act after giving a reasonable opportunity of bein…

RICHMOND REALTY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5595/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)
Section 14ASection 40A(2)(a)

…O on this issue by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sathrunjay Diamond (261 ITR 258) and also the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nund & Samont Co. Pvt. Ltd. (78 ITR 268). 7. We heard the Ld. DR on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that the remuneration paid to the Directors have been tested under the provisions of Sec. 40A(2)(a) of the Act. We noticed that the assessee has failed to justify the quantum of remuneration paid to its Directors. Under these set of facts, we do not find any infirmity in th…

ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. PARVEZ MOHAMMED HUSSION GHASWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3318/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.W.. AngolkarFor Respondent: & Ms. Aasifa Khan
Section 69A

…se for A.Y. 2007-08 has not accepted by the department. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nund & Samant Co Pvt Ltd vs CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC) wherein the Court has held that it is for the tax payer to establish by evidence that the particulars expenditure is justifiable. (3) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set side and that of the AO be restored.” 12. As stated above, assessee was partner in Alliance Hotel and retired from partnership on 14.1…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2