State of Madras vs GJ Coelho (53 ITR 186)(SC) CIT v. Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd.

10 ITD 788Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1984#21891 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing State of Madras vs GJ Coelho (53 ITR 186)(SC) CIT v. Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METSO MINERALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…s cloths, food etc or purposes not related to the business for which the deduction is claimed. Kindly see - State of Madras vs GJ Coelho (53 ITR 186)(SC) CIT vs Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 257 (P&H) ITO vs Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. (1984) 10 ITD 788 (Mad) d) An analysis of section 37(1) shows that any expenditure • not being expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 and • not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee • laid out or expended • wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business • 8 shall be allowed in computing the inc…

M/S. PARBHAT HEAVY FORGE PVT. LTD.,PUNJAB vs. ADDL. CIT, KARNAL

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

ITA 5288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh.O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Prabhat Heavy Forge Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit, Ltd., Karnal Range, Karnal V. Gupta & Associates, Cas, D-15, Calibre Market, Rajpur Punjab Pan :Aaccp6521A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…Managing Director may constitute extra remuneration to the Managing Director. But so far as the assessee company is concerned, the entire amount will be allowable as business expenditure. ITO Vs. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. (1985), 21 TTJ (Mad) 465 TM (1984) 10 ITD 788 (Mad) (TM) followed”. " 70 TTJ 338, Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur Bench). " 112 Taxman (Magazine) 195 I & I Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench), in which it was held as under: “The claim of the assessee, a private limited company, for deduction of telephone expenses, vehicle maintenance expenses and car dep…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VELCON PROJECTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6568/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर पील पील सं पील सं सं./I.T.A. No.6568/Del/2015 सं (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) वष" Ito, Ward- 26(2), Velcon Projects (P) Ltd., बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम 12/4, 1St Floor, New Delhi. East Patel Nagar, Vs. New Delhi. ःथायी ःथायी लेखा ःथायी ःथायी लेखा लेखा सं लेखा सं सं./जीआइआर सं जीआइआर जीआइआर सं जीआइआर सं सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-4445-L सं (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ" / Respondent) ू"यथ" : Revenue By : Shri Parnav Kumar, Ld. Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri S. K. Chaturvedi, Ca सुनवाई सुनवाई क" सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तार"ख क" तार"ख तार"ख / तार"ख : 13/11/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा घोषणा क" घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तार"ख क" तार"ख तार"ख / तार"ख : 15/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parnav Kumar, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 199

…e addition without discussion. It is also submitted that the appellant being a corporate entity, there can be no element of personal use. The appellant has also relied the decision of ITAT in the case of Ashoka Betelnut Co (India) Pvt ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 10 ITD 788. 4.1 Considering the above submissions, I find that the A.O. as made adhoc addition. The A.O. has not pointed out any specific mistakes and further, he has not given any instances which proves the expenses as personal in nature.The A.O. has made the addition without assigning any reason, which is not sustainable in law. Therefore, in view of the a…