Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

88 ITD 95Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18371 most cited
5

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

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…ctric India Ltd. vs. CIT 304 ITR 360 (Del.); (ii) Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC); (iii) The Printer House (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 18(1) in ITA No.1674/Del/2011; (iv) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 88 ITD 95. 6 Referring to the above case laws, ld. CIT (A) enhanced the total income by disallowing the entire commission paid as under :- “ In view of the provisions of Sec. 37 (1) of the IT Act and various case laws on the similar or identical issues, it is held that the whole or the claim of commission amounting to Rs.2,27,35,807/- is not deductable. Ther…

ACIT Cir -4(2) (1), Thane vs. M/S. Mukti Gold Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…er Electric India Ltd Vs. CIT (304 ITR 360) Delhi High Court: 2. Lachminarayan Madan Lal V/S CIT (85 ITR 49 SC) 3. M/s Sun Infra and M/s. Sun Minerals in ITA No. 2117/Hyd/2011 and ITA No. 2116/Hyd/2011 4. Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2004) (ITAT-Delhi) (88 ITD 95) 5. M/s K.V. Minerals, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 15.07.2013 (ITAT No. 1996/Hyd/2011) 6. Davinder Singh v ACIT (104 ITD 325) (ITAT, Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd 1951 AIR 108 (19 ITR 191) (SC) 8. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v/s CIT(1969) (73 ITR 634) (SC) 9. L.B. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd v/s CIT (19 CTR) 185: (1980) 125 ITR…

Sun Minerals, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessees' are dismissed

ITA 138/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiahm/S. Sun Minerals Vs D.C.I.T., Circle 6 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Abgfs5262D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…lls Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (73 ITR 634) (SC) and L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR) (SC) 185 : (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC). 12. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (88 ITD 95) held as under; "51. Examining this matter from another angle, we feel that the onus of proof that the commission paid was genuine was on the assessee. The question that further arises is as to whether the assessee has discharged the onus and if yes then how. According to the assessee he has discharged the onus by proving that the payment has been…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d amount was rightly assessed as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee in block assessment. ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Rubber Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITD 95 wherein it was held that onus of proof that commission paid was genuine, the assessee should miserably failed to demonstrate that services were rendered to it and failed to discharge onus, therefore not entitled to deduction to commission paid. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in support of the prop…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d amount was rightly assessed as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee in block assessment. ITA Nos. 1422 & 1423/Mum/2010, Smt. Pratiksha Shah 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Rubber Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITD 95 wherein it was held that onus of proof that commission paid was genuine, the assessee should miserably failed to demonstrate that services were rendered to it and failed to discharge onus, therefore not entitled to deduction to commission paid. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in support of the prop…

Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (88 ITD 95) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax