Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT

253 ITR 749High Court2002#525 most cited

What is Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT authority for?

For a limited company, expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the grounds of presumed personal use of assets by directors or by treating the expenditure as a non-business purpose. Percentage disallowances of expenses in such cases are not sustainable.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT · 253 ITR 749 · disallowance of expenses · personal use directors · non-business purpose · limited company expenses · business expediency · Section 40A

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40(a)(ia)Section 119Section 127Section 133ASection 142(2A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 198section 2(31)business expediencysection 40a(2)(b)material facts necessary for assessmentsection 40a(2)mere change of opinionsection 40ablock of assetsenduring benefitsection 40a(3)section 30

Judgments citing Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…any, on the same and the ld AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported in 253 ITR 749 (Guj) in this regard. Based on these findings and judicial precedent relied upon, we hold that no disallowance of expenditure on maintenance of aircrafts need to be made on an estimated basis towards expenditure incurred for non-business purposes. Hence the issue of maintenance of aircrafts being utilized for business purposes are proved beyond d…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1790/KOL/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1790/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 1996-97 D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) -Vs- M/S E.I.H. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 80H

…tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2002-03 vide order dated 11.09.2015 had also deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the ld. AO by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. vs CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj) wherein it was held that there cannot be any personal element of expenditure debited in the books of the company being non- natural person and cannot have personal element thereon. Accordingly it was held that expenditure incurred had to be construed only for business purposes. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid findings in these peculiar facts…

Garodia Syntex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6368/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…e has incurred lesser expenses during the year under consideration. He further submitted that the assessee is a corporate entity and hence the question of “Personal element” does not arise in its hands as held in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (253 ITR 749). Accordingly he contended that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of 10% made on estimated basis towards personal element. 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has failed to show that the entire expenses were incurred towards business purpose only. 6. We heard the parties on this issue and perused…

Fouress Engg (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 754/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. Dcit Range-5(1) 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahalaxmi Chamber, Vs. Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026 Pan:Aaacf5897K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr.K. Shivram With : Ms Nilam Jadhav -Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop ( Sr. DR)
Section 137(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 37(1)

…nt made to Guest house is less than the Hotels rate. The disallowance @ 50% on adhoc basis is not justified. In support of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. v CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj). 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the tax auditor of the assessee raised objection on the expenditure shown on Travelling ITA No. 754/Mum/2016 - M/s Fouress Engg (I) Ltd. Expenses. During the assessment, the assessee has not filed any eviden…

Jamipol Ltd, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Jamshedpur

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

ITA 68/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT(A), ld.Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(2)

…he CIT-A is unjustified, arbitrary and liable to be deleted and further submitted that the various Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals held against adhoc disallowances and placed his reliance on the following case laws:- • Sayajit Iron & Engg Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749(Guj) • Core Health Care Limited Vs. DCIT(200) 70 TTJ ™ (Ahm) • Tripat Kaur, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3244/Del/2012 • CIT Vs. The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, ITA No. 896 of 2013 32. In view of above, he prayed to allow the ground raised by the assessee in the appeal. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO and CIT-A. 33. Heard…

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Idbi Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1562/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit-6(1) Idbi Federal Life 5Th Floor, Room No. Insurance Company Vs. 506, Aayakarbhavan, 1St Floor, Tradeview, M.K. Road, Oasis Complex, Kamala Mumbai-400020. City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aabci6227M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Idbi Federal Life Insurance Dcit-6(1) Company 5Th Floor, Room No. Vs. 1St Floor, Tradeview, Oasis 506, Aayakar Complex, Kamala City, P.B. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013 Pan No. Aabci6227M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 260ASection 28Section 44

…y a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of tax laws”. Carrying this principle further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT 253 ITR 749 reiterated that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts, and if a bench of a Tribunal on identical facts is allowed to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another bench of the Tribunal on an…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…any, on the same and the ld AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported in 253 ITR 749 (Guj) in this regard. Based on these findings and judicial precedent relied upon, we hold that no disallowance of expenditure on maintenance of aircrafts need to be made on an estimated basis towards expenditure incurred for non-business purposes. Hence the issue of maintenance of aircrafts being utilized for business purposes are proved beyond d…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…any, on the same and the ld AO cannot resort to make any disallowance of expenditure on that count on an estimated basis. We also draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co vs CIT reported in 253 ITR 749 (Guj) in this regard. Based on these findings and judicial precedent relied upon, we hold that no disallowance of expenditure on maintenance of aircrafts need to be made on an estimated basis towards expenditure incurred for non-business purposes. Hence the issue of maintenance of aircrafts being utilized for business purposes are proved beyond d…

M/S Shree Radhe Industries Ltd vs. Asstt.Comissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur(Cg)

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

ITA 76/BIL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-2006

For Appellant: Shri R.K.Ghaneniwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- out of total expenses considering the fact that the personal of Directors are not ruled out. On appeal, the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg Co. vs CIT, 253 ITR 749(Guj) restricted the disallowance to Rs.66,000/-. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and materials available on record. Considering the turnover of the assessee and also the fact that the assessee could not substantiate with proper evidence , we do not find any merit in the ground of the assessee. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ifb Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1414/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1414/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Ifb Industries Ltd. [Pan: Aaaci 6561 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Dr. Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…use of telephone for personal purposes of employees, cannot be ruled out. This aspect is now covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat rendered in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. CIT as reported in [2002] 253 ITR 749. By respectfully following this judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat (supra), we confirm the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal stands rejected.” 4 M/s IFB Industries Ltd. A.Yr. 2007-08 In view of the facts and respectfully following the decision of Delhi Tribunal…

Gulshan International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4708/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 245Section 36(1)(va)

…f the Directors as perquisite and no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee company. For the above proposition I find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. vs. CIT reported in 253 ITR 749. I, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance so made. 6. So far as the second ground is concerned, the same relates to the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of interest on income-tax refund. Since the assessee has received interest of…

Agribiotech Industries Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed off accordingly

ITA 367/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

…une, 2012 in the case of Rahuljee & Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunals & others - Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Vs. CIT(Appeals) (SC), [288ITR 2] M/s Agribiotech Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Jaipur -Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 253 ITR 749”. 4.1 I have considered the reply of the assessee. The expenses are allowable only when the same are for wholly and exclusively for business purpose. If the directors visited abroad for business purpose than the business VISA was must. But it was found that the Directors of the company visited UAE, Maritius and Maldives on tourist Visa. Even the…

Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6303/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V. S. Rastogi, A. RFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT [DR]
Section 153C

…12 I. T. Appeal No. 6303/Del/2013 AND I. T. Appeal No. 6342/Del/2013. Assessment Year : 2006-07. 6.8 In support following submission was made where above principles were laid down :- “i) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) has reiterated that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts, and if a bench of a Tribunal on identical facts is allowed to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another bench of the Tri…

Orissa Air Products Pvt. Ltd., Dhenkanal vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 6/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri T.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…nce to 20% of the expenses, which works out to Rs.82,059/- and allowed relief of Rs.1,90,336/-. 21. Before me, ld A.R. of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 253 ITR 749 (Guj), wherein, it was held as under: “9.1. There is one more aspect of the matter which requires to be considered. The assessee which is a private limited company is a distinct assessable entity as per definition of "person" under s. 2(31) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be stated that when the vehicles are used by the directors, "even if they…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Asas Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4359/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…ubmitted that the expenditure had been incurred for promotion of business of the company and as the assessee company is an inanimate person, no personal element was involved. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sayaji Iron & Steel Co. 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) " Coca Cola India Ltd. Vs JCIT (2006) 102 ITD 134 (Pune) " Lavrids Knudsan Maskin Fabrik (India) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Pune) 882 " DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (1999) 76 ITD (Del) 32 " Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj.) " CIT Vs S.S.P. (P) Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxman 386 (P&H) " Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. Vs CIT…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee's appeal as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…entre Pvt. Ltd. Union of India (2003) 263 ITR 206 (Raj), decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Minda Corporation Ltd Vs. DCIT 69 Taxman 317 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj). 19. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has taken vehicles on finance lease and has capitalized the same. The repayment of principle is not allowable being incurred for accruing capital asset and was for enduring benefit of the assessee. Since the assessee has ta…

M/S Megasoft Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2831/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR

…ough bank with proper supporting vouchers, hence, both the additions in dispute are deleted. To support this contention, I draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Sayaji Iron & Engg. & Co. vs CIT (Gujarat HC) reported in 253 ITR 749. 6.4 With regard to ground no. 10 & 11 relating to disallowing the donation of Rs. 20,000/- and not allowing the deduction under section 80G are concerned. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Rs. 20,000/- had been made for the purpose of advertisement of the company. Hence, incurred exclusively for the business purpose. He stated that a bare…

Kalpaj Realty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4272/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannum/S. Kalpaj Realty Pvt. Ltd., Kalpaj Vikunthlal Mehta Marg, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056 Pan: Aaack 1559P ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(2) Mumbai .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Ms Beena Santosh
Section 143(3)

…nd is in relation to the business of the assessee. It is pointed out that there cannot be a personal element in case of the expenses incurred by a corporate entity as laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron And Engg. Co. vs CIT, 253 ITR 749(Guj). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that the disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer as no explanation was offered by the assessee. 5. In my considered opinion, since the assessee is a corporate entity, the impugned adhoc disallowance made on the basis of alleged personal use is not sustainable hav…

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Vipin B Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6821/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…ance can be made under section 40A(2) of the Act, the learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Cisco Systems Capital (I) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 343 (Bangalore) (ii) Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) (iii) Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3289 and 9437/Mum/2014) (iv) Goldcrest Exports vs. ITO (ITA No. 442/Mum/2009) 4.3.2 It is also contended that expenditure incurred on labour charges paid to the same three related parties was accepted by the Department and no disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act was made in scrutiny…

Vipin Bhimraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6381/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…ance can be made under section 40A(2) of the Act, the learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Cisco Systems Capital (I) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 343 (Bangalore) (ii) Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) (iii) Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 3289 and 9437/Mum/2014) (iv) Goldcrest Exports vs. ITO (ITA No. 442/Mum/2009) 4.3.2 It is also contended that expenditure incurred on labour charges paid to the same three related parties was accepted by the Department and no disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act was made in scrutiny…