Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

117 ITR 569Supreme Court of India1979#3155 most cited

What is Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure or payments to related persons cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(2)(b) unless the Assessing Officer first establishes that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. The onus is on the revenue to prove such unreasonableness.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 40A(2)(b) · related persons · excessive expenditure · unreasonable expenditure · disallowance · onus of proof · fair market value · legitimate needs of business

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 115BBESection 139(4)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

Issues it is cited on

commercial expediencysection 271section 27section 143(1)previous yearsection 143personsection 14indiatotal incomebusinesscompany

Judgments citing Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…undisputed fact, which is not possible without services of employee. Once the services are undisputed remuneration cannot be disallowed. In the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 117 ITR 569 it is held that onus is on the revenue to prove that the expenditure incurred by the business man is unreasonable then the provision of section 40A(2)(b) can be applied. The action of the A.O should be based on well founded reason the assessee Page 31 of 35 also relied upon CIT vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in 303 ITR 271, CIT vs. Forbes Tea Brok…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, the expenses should be allowed as genuine business expenses. 19.3 The panel has carefully considered the submission of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 569 (SC) has held the expenses or payment cannot be disallowed unless it is held that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. U/s 40A(2)(b), any payment made to related persons, if considered excessive or unreasonable by the AO is not allowed as deduction and the AO can make such disallowance on the basis of the fair market value of goods, serv…

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…e Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court. Therefore, the expenses should be allowed as\ngenuine business expenses.\n\n19.3 The panel has carefully considered the submission of the\nassessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upper India Publishing\nHouse Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 569 (SC) has held the\nexpenses or payment cannot be disallowed unless it is held that\nthe expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. U/s 40A(2)(b),\nany payment made to related persons, if considered excessive or\nunreasonable by the AO is not allowed as deduction and the AO\ncan make such disallowance on the basis of the fair market value\nof goods…

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…e AO without specifying as to how the salary so paid is unreasonable or excessive, made the disallowance which is against the provisions of section 40A(2)(a). For this reliance is placed in the following cases:- Upper India Publishing House (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 569(SC) (Case laws compilation PB 1) The question whether a particular expenditure is excessive & unreasonable or not is essentially a question of fact & unless it is first held that such expenditure was excessive or unreasonable, the question of applicability of section 40(A)(2)(a) becomes academic. CIT Vs. Consulting Engineering Group Ltd. (2014)…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

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

ITA 274/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…d. It is well settled that the provisions of section. 40A(2)(a) of the Act cannot have any application unless it is first concluded that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable, as held in the case of Upper India Publishing House (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 569/1 Taxman 365 (SC). In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of interest excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or…

PANKAJ UTTAMCHAND KATARIA ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -3, AMRAVATI

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

ITA 34/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Nov 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Uttamchand Kataria, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Amravati. Kataria Agencies, Nawathe Plot, Danwantri, Amravati. Pan : Aibpk3441Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, There Is A Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Of 317 Days. The Appellant Filed A Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Had Occurred On Account Of The Appellant Pursuing The Alternative Remedy By Filing The Petition U/S 154 & The Order U/S 154 From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Received On 02.09.2017. Thereafter, The Counsel Of The Appellant Was Busy In Attending His Father, Who Is Aged About 83

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. J. Ninawe
Section 154Section 40A(2)(b)

…r had not brought any material on record to show what is the reasonable expenditure of salary or the fair market value of the services rendered by said Shri Rajesh Kataria. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 ITR 569 (SC) had clearly held that no addition u/s 40A(2)(b) can be made by the Assessing Officer without bringing material on record as to fair market value of the services and this position was accepted by the CBDT vide Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in 4 making the addition cannot be accepted. Hence, t…

SURESH HIMMATLAL OZA ,PUNE vs. DEPUYY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -6, PUNE

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

ITA 487/PUN/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.487/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suresh Himmatlal Oza, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. 326, Rasta Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aafpo5026M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K. Srinivasan : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Agarbattis & Other Type Of Incense Sticks. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,43,38,340/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)

…of section 40A(2)(b) should discharge the onus lies upon him to bring on record and demonstrate, as to what is the fair market value of the expenditure incurred as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 117 ITR 569 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no addition u/s 40A(2)(b) can be made by the Assessing Officer without bringing material on record as well as fair market value of the services and this position was accepted by the CBDT vide Circular No.6-P dated 06.07.1968. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had not discharged this onus…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…uding the commission income. In view of the above facts, disallowance taken under this stand by the Assessing Officer is not valid. 1.6. The appellant relies on the ratio of below judgements: • Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected the entire income in his return of Income. 1.8. The ap…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…uding the commission income. In view of the above facts, disallowance taken under this stand by the Assessing Officer is not valid. 1.6. The appellant relies on the ratio of below judgements: • Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected the entire income in his return of Income. 1.8. The ap…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…uding the commission income. In view of the above facts, disallowance taken under this stand by the Assessing Officer is not valid. 1.6. The appellant relies on the ratio of below judgements: • Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected the entire income in his return of Income. 1.8. The ap…

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

…uding the commission income. In view of the above facts, disallowance taken under this stand by the Assessing Officer is not valid. 1.6. The appellant relies on the ratio of below judgements: • Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected the entire income in his return of Income. 1.8. The ap…

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1180/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1179 & 1180/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke M/s Swastik Oil Industries, DCIT, Vs. F-5 to 8, Industrial Area, Circle-07, Jaipur Newai, Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS8180J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargie…

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1179/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1179 & 1180/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke M/s Swastik Oil Industries, DCIT, Vs. F-5 to 8, Industrial Area, Circle-07, Jaipur Newai, Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS8180J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargie…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ave been made by the A.O. in this regard. Therefore, there were no justifications for the A.O. to disallow the salary payment to the employees who are relatives of the Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ave been made by the A.O. in this regard. Therefore, there were no justifications for the A.O. to disallow the salary payment to the employees who are relatives of the Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ave been made by the A.O. in this regard. Therefore, there were no justifications for the A.O. to disallow the salary payment to the employees who are relatives of the Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…ave been made by the A.O. in this regard. Therefore, there were no justifications for the A.O. to disallow the salary payment to the employees who are relatives of the Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2), A.O. should have proved expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” In the absence of any such finding by the A.O, there was no justification to disallow salary. The A.O. did not doubt the salary paid to the employees which is paid through banking channel and the employees have shown…

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6625/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A No. 6625/Del/2019 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). b) CIT vs. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). c) CIT vs. Walchand & Co. P. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC). d) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Del. HC) e) Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 (SC). f) Motilal Laxmichand Sanghavi vs. ACIT in ITA No.3110/Mum/2018 dated 26.07.2019. g) Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1128/Del/2017 dated 14.10.2019. The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier submissions it should be considered that the Assessing Officer has complied with conditions stipulated in…

HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…he disallowance. The method applied by the A.O. is not acceptable in view of the language prescribed under section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, in which A.O. has made disallowance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 (SC) 14 ITA.No.1128 & 1129/Del./2017 M/s. Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, the A.O. should have prove that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” It may also be noted here that A.O. disallowed both the expenses considering that expenses have not…

HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. D.R
Section 14A

…he disallowance. The method applied by the A.O. is not acceptable in view of the language prescribed under section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, in which A.O. has made disallowance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITR 569 (SC) 14 ITA.No.1128 & 1129/Del./2017 M/s. Harparshad and Company Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. held that “before applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, the A.O. should have prove that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable.” It may also be noted here that A.O. disallowed both the expenses considering that expenses have not…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (117 ITR 569) — Cited in 37 Judgments | BharatTax