Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd.

382 ITR 152High Court2016#5142 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee fails to produce bills or vouchers to substantiate expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance may be made. However, if bills and vouchers are duly produced and examined, a different approach may be warranted.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. · section 40(a)(ia) · section 133(6) · section 69 · substantiating expenses · ad-hoc disallowance · bills and vouchers · onus of proof

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 86

Issues it is cited on

section 40(a)(ia)section 133(6)section 69transferpersonbusinessindiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd.

Dilip Kumar Khetan, Ambedkarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambedkarnagar

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

ITA 18/ALLD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Dilip Kumar Khetan V. Income Tax Officer Proprietor Dilip Yarn Traders Ambedkarnagar-224149. Jalalpur, Ambedkarnagar-224149. Tan/Pan: Aaspk9710B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR)
Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

…ng Officer is justified in making disallowance of 25% of those expenses amounting to Rs.41,785/- which were reduced to 12.5% by the CIT(A). The Ld. DR has relied upon the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 152 (Alld.). 9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made the adhoc disallowance of 25% of certain expenses under the head of Shop Expenses, Travelling Expenses and Vehicle Running and Maintenance Expenses for want of voucher and verification. The said disallowance made by Assessing…

M/S. L.P.R. Construction, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 257/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. L.P.R. Construction V. Dcit Circle-1 15F/1A, Baghambari Gaddi, Allahabad-211001. Allahapur, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aaifm8174H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 44A

…esse for the A.Y.2011-12 was processed u/s 143(1) and there is no scrutiny assessment and secondly the turnover has increased more than three times. He has relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. 382 ITR 152 as well as Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CIT 246 ITR 116. He has also relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. 6. The Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account of assessee by invoking the provision of Section 1…

Rajendra Kumar Kesari, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/ALLD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajendra Kumar Kesari, V. Income Tax Officer, Bharatganj, Allahabad Ward-1(4), Allahabad Pan-Ahlpk4554D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2020

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147

…s also disallowed the 2 Rajendra Kumar Kesari telephone and vehicle running expenses for personal use. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below as well as decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Rimjhim Ispat Limited 382 ITR 152 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the expenditure claimed and shown in the profit & loss account were required to be proved by the production of bills and vouchers. In the absence of bills and vouchers, the AO was justified in disallowing a certain portion of such expenses. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well…

Pr. CIT v. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. (382 ITR 152) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax