Umakant v. DCIT

369 ITR 220High Court2014#7147 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

depreciation on non-compete feesection 86section 36(l)(va)non-compete feesection 46section 46asection 36(l)section 92c(3)management feessection 32(1)(ii)commercial rightsarms length price

Judgments citing Umakant v. DCIT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 3317/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT ITA(TP)1337 Ban 2010 vide order dated 24/05/2017 have held as under : Quote, “But onus lies on the assessee to furnish the proof of actual receipt of the services by the appellant from the AE. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant Vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 held that proof of rendition of services is a sinequanone for allowability of expenditure in the hands of the recipient of the services……………… The coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., of which the Hon’ble AM is the author, held as follows: “12. Thus in the light of the above legal position, the ALP of services o…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 3316/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT ITA(TP)1337 Ban 2010 vide order dated 24/05/2017 have held as under : Quote, “But onus lies on the assessee to furnish the proof of actual receipt of the services by the appellant from the AE. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant Vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 held that proof of rendition of services is a sinequanone for allowability of expenditure in the hands of the recipient of the services……………… The coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., of which the Hon’ble AM is the author, held as follows: “12. Thus in the light of the above legal position, the ALP of services o…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 3315/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…IT ITA(TP)1337 Ban 2010 vide order dated 24/05/2017 have held as under : Quote, “But onus lies on the assessee to furnish the proof of actual receipt of the services by the appellant from the AE. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant Vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 held that proof of rendition of services is a sinequanone for allowability of expenditure in the hands of the recipient of the services……………… The coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., of which the Hon’ble AM is the author, held as follows: “12. Thus in the light of the above legal position, the ALP of services o…

SRI SIMHADRI PONNALURU REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1106/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 143Section 37Section 41(1)

…aughters of the assessee and Sh Hemang B. Chappia was an employee with Mis First Security Private Limited, of which the assessee was the Managing Director. The AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant B. Agrawal vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 and held that proof of Sri Simhadri Ponnaluru Reddy, Bangalore Page 8 of 15 rendition of services was a sine qua non for allowability of expenditure Since the assessee had failed to give any documentary evidence to prove that services were actually rendered by these three individuals, the AO treated the transactions as sham transactions and disa…

MESSUNG SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2585/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2585/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

…System while affecting sales to M/s. Manugraph India Pvt. Ltd in view of these facts judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant does not support the case of the appellant. 5.7 The Bombay High Court in case of Umakant B. Agrawal vs. DCIT reported in 369 ITR 220(Bom) has held that: “Since appellant failed to produce evidence regarding sub-agency commission paid by showing nature of services rendered by sub- agents, said expenditure could not be allowed” 5.8 In view of the above, the action of the AO of disallowing Agency Commission of Rs.43,00,318/- paid to M/s. Microlog Systems is upheld and ground No.1…

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1460 & 1461/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2009-10) Income Tax Officer – 5(2)(2) v. M/s. Karteek Ferromet Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 567, 5th Floor 2nd Floor, Plot No. 162 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fanjawala Building Mumbai – 400020 M.G. Mahimtura Marg Kumbharwada, Giarguaum Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AADCK4241K (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee by : Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 O…

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1460 & 1461/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2009-10) Income Tax Officer – 5(2)(2) v. M/s. Karteek Ferromet Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 567, 5th Floor 2nd Floor, Plot No. 162 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fanjawala Building Mumbai – 400020 M.G. Mahimtura Marg Kumbharwada, Giarguaum Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AADCK4241K (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee by : Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 O…

IDC CENTRE FOR CONSULTANCY AND RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 104/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

…angible and substantial commercial benefit was derived by it from such services. M/s. IDC Centre for Consultancy and Research Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 5 The AO also relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant B Agrawal vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 wherein it was held that proof of rendition of services is a sine qua none for allowability of expenditure in hands of the recipient of the services. The AO also relied upon the decisions of ITAT Bangalore in the cases of M/s TaeguTec India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT dated 24.05.2017 in ITA No. T(TP)A No. 1337/Bang/2010, [2017] 83 taxmann.com (Bangalore-…

ITO - 31 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NARENDRA R. BOHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6371/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) V. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/S. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2Nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan: Aaapb7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Patni

For Appellant: Shri Suresh PatniFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) v. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/s. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 PAN: AAAPB7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Patni Department by : Shri R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (…

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

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

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…on the assessee to establish the fact that the expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Umakant B Agarwal Vs. DCIT reported in 369 ITR 220 wherein it was held as under: “The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden and it is not impossible. It is a primary onus and which was to be discharged and which has been held as not discharged by providing the requisite details. These are not matters which were to be knowledge of the Assessing Officer and the assessee was called upo…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

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

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…on the assessee to establish the fact that the expenditures were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Umakant B Agarwal Vs. DCIT reported in 369 ITR 220 wherein it was held as under: “The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden and it is not impossible. It is a primary onus and which was to be discharged and which has been held as not discharged by providing the requisite details. These are not matters which were to be knowledge of the Assessing Officer and the assessee was called upo…

AIR CARGO CONNECTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE RANGE 1, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2421/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 143(3)Section 40

…connection, reliance is placed upon the following decisions that have held that in the absence of rendering of service, disallowance of commission is justifiable: a. The Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant V. Agarwal vs. DCIT (2014) 46 taxman.com 338 / 369 ITR 220 (Bombay) has held that where the appellant failed to produce evidences regarding the sub agency commission paid by showing the nature of services rendered by the sub-agents, the said expenditure could not be allowed. b. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 40 Taxrnan.com 166 (Guj.) has held that where the…

NIRUPA SAHAS KANITKAR,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 37

…nd the arguments before the First Appellate Authority. Eventually, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition made by the AO. CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umakant B. Agarwal Vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 (Bom.) for the proposition that the commission cannot be held to be deductible if no evidence of services rendered is furnished. 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us with the aforesaid grounds. 6. Bringing our attention to the details of commission placed at pages 4 and 5 of the paper book, Ld. Counsel for…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. CHANDRA MATS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1830/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(2)

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1830/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Chandra Mats Pvt. Ltd., P. No. K-224 & 225, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad PAN : AABCC5846L ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख…

M/S. TAEGU TEC INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1337/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l by questioning the necessity or the benefits out of the expenditure incurred. But onus lies on the assessee to furnish the proof of actual receipt of the services by the appellant from the AE. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Umakant Vs. DCIT 369 ITR 220 held that proof of rendition of services is a sinequanone for allowability of expenditure in the hands of the recipient of the services. But in the present case, it is not discernible that the appellant made any Page 9 of 11 attempt to furnish the proof of receipt of the services. The appellant also filed an application for admission of this a…

HASSAN ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4156/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. No.

For Appellant: None (written submissions)For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 153A

…the Act, which are or can be decided upon on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, and toward which the ld. DR has cited abundant case law, viz. CIT vs. Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 228 Taxman 346 (Del)(Mag.); Umakant B. Agrawal vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 369 ITR 220 (Bom); CIT vs. Narinder Kumar Sekhri [2015] 228 Taxman 35 (P&H)(Mag); Edayanal Constructions vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 671 (Ker). In fact, that apart, the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), rendered considering four precedents by the hon’ble Apex Court, is a locus classicus on the subject. In view of the foregoing,…