Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT

258 ITR 306High Court2002#4984 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2020.

Judgments citing Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT

SOUJANYA COLOR PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, MUMBAI

ITA 2041/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2041/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…al evidences submitted by the assessee, sustained the addition made by AO by relying on following case laws:- i) Echjay Forgings Ltd. vrs. ACIT in 328 ITR 286. ii) Mac Explotec Pvt. Ltd. vrs. CIT in 155 Taxmann 247. iii) CIT vrs. R.K.K.R. Steels Pvt. Ltd. in 258 ITR 306. iv) M. Subramaniam Bros. Vrs. CIT in 250 ITR 769. 9 I.T.A. No. 2041/Mum/2018 8. Further Ld. CIT(A) has come to the conclusion as mentioned below:- 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion on the facts of the case, provision of Section 37(1) of the IT Act as well as decisions cited, I hold that the appellant company"" is a closely held Pvt.…

CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-56, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 546/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…I.T.A. No. 546/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Central Arya Road Transport IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 546/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Central Arya Road Transport,....................................................... Appellant Tivoli Court, Block-B, Flat-93, 1C, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700 019 [PAN: AACFC 2568 F] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,...........…….......................Respondent Circle-56, Kolkata, 3, Government Place (…

SINGHI & CO.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-54, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 971/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Singhi & Co., Acit, 1B, Old Post Office Street, Circle-54, 54/1, Rafi Kolkata-700001. Ahmed Kidwai Road, Pan-Aasfs9578D Kolkata-700016. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By Sh. Pradip Majumden, Addl. Cit. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…acing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mac Explotee P.Ltd. reported in (2006) 286 ITR 378 (Karnataka) which agreed with the finding of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of R.K.K.R. Steels P.Ltd. reported in 258 ITR 306 which held the expenditure permissible for deduction is expenditure i.e. wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business. The expenditure which a father incurs out of his natural love and affection for his children in meeting the cost of their education can not become a business expenditure merely because he is also the owner or a Dir…

M/S. M. KUPPUSWAMAY PSG & CO. LLP.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3126/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 06.11.2017
Section 37

…xpenditure does not become business expenditure merely because Mr G. Anush was in a position to claim the expenditure in the assessee firm. Further, I rely on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam Bros., reported in [2001] 250 ITR 769 (Mad) wherein the facts involved in that case, is quite similar to that of the present case in hand. In the case, the jurisdictional High Court held that”- “The assessee was a partnership firm consisting of father and two sons and a daughter. The father sent his younger son abroad for higher education when he 11 was 21. The son had been admit…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI & SONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2015/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2013/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1618/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1616/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1615/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1614/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1613/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1611/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

…s for the Directors to take care of respective children and their education. The Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 and also in CIT v. R.K.K.R. Steels P. Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 306. In those judgments, a similar payment made for the education of the close relatives of the Directors / partners was disallowed. The Assessing Officer, in fact, followed these judgments of jurisdictional High Court for disallowing the tuition fee paid to the children of the Directors of the assessee- company. Therefore, this Tribunal do not fi…

MOHATA COAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 322/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) Mohata Coal Company Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Hmp Building 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 8Th Floor, 110 Shanti Palli, 4, Fairlie Place Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm 1775 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.19/Cc- Xxi/Cit(A)C-Ii/13-14, Dated 09.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 25.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Fabricated Metal & Structural Products, Filed Its E-Return Of Income On 24.09.2010 Showing Total Income Of Rs.9,99,292/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment Making Disallowance Of Rs.13,79,177/- Of Staff Welfare Expenses & Rs.5,59,225/- Of Travelling Expenses On Account Of Expenses Incurred By The Assessee For Higher Studies Of A Staff Of The Company.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…s arrived on a correct conclusion that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of appellant company and, therefore, not allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. 5.3 In the case of CIT vs. R.K.K.R. Steels (P) Ltd., 258 ITR 306 (Mad.), the assessee company was engaged in the business of re- rolling and manufacturing of steel. The company claimed that the expenditure incurred on meeting the cost of travel to USA and the expenditure connected with the education of the son of Balwant Rai who was the director of the company, was deductible as business expenditure as the sai…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2