Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

129 ITR 105High Court1981#3955 most cited

What is Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Gujarat High Court in Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. held that the perspective of the assessee, a businessman, should be considered when determining commercial expediency, not solely the department's viewpoint. A businessman must act prudently to advance their business interests.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · section 37 · commercial expediency · prudent businessman · business interest · departmental view · assessee's perspective · Gujarat High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 37Section 92BA

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)commercial expediencysection 37section 37(1)persontotal incomecompanybusinessdocumentinterestsection 14

Judgments citing Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Hinduja Group India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for A

ITA 4458/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 40

…is revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively in the interest of business, it should be allowed without being too meticulous, as to whether such visits results immediately in earning of profits. The Gujarat High Court in Voltamp Transformers P Ltd 129 ITR 105, has held, the benefit derived by or accruing to the assessee from goods services or facilities etc. are to be judged from the viewpoint of a businessman and not from the viewpoint of a revenue officer. This cardinal principle has not been accepted by the AO and while considering the allowability of the expenditure he has looked into the proposit…

The DCIT, Circle- 5(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Pravin Shripal Jain, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri A.L. Thakkar, AR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…s to quantification of expenditure while expression “exclusively” refers to the motive, objective and purpose of the expenditure. The assessee has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Voltamp Transformer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 129 ITR 105 (Guj). This decision was referred by the assessee in his written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) and following observations were brought to the notice of the ld.CIT(A). “So far as the questions of commercial expediency and business need of an organization are concerned, it is not the view point of a revenue officer which should count, but…

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Modern Laboratories, Indore

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

…case of Nestor Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. [2010] 33 DTR 293(Del), Bharat Medical DCIT v 1(1) v Modern Laboratories / I. T. A. No. 277/Ind/2014& CO.No.16/Ind/2014/AY:08-09 Page 6 of 29 Stores [2009] 308 ITR 373(P&H) and Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 105 (Guj). This explain the role of commission agents in government contract and describes the details of service rendered by them in such contracts. On merits, the CIT (A) observed that there is mismatch in the case of M/s. Apex Pharmaceuticals, Bhopal regarding bills and TDS and variation of commission payments from 1% to 25%. The appellant expl…

M/S.Hubli Cigarette Centre, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2175/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.R. Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT(DR)
Section 40ASection 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…excessive in comparison to the services rendered by them as well as the comparable payment of salary. 6. The ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions. I) CIT Vs Forbes Tea Brokers 315 ITR 404 (Madras High Court) II) Voltamp Transformer Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 129 ITR 105 III) Neha Proteins Ltd. Vs ACIT 83 TTJ 236 (I.T.A.T. Jodhpur Tribunal) Page 5 of 7 On the other hand the ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is no dispute that all these 5 persons are relatives of the partners of the assessee firm and therefore the provisions of section 40A(2A) are applicable in th…

Mhatre Engineering P.Ld, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2187/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Mhatre Engineering Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-10(3)(3), बनाम/ R-648, TTC Industrail Area, R. No.452, Vs. MIDC, Rabale, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-400701 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AABCM9483B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri S.K. Mishra-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 17/08/2016 08/0…

Mahakoshal Refraactories P.Ltd vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2913/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Mahakoshal Refractories Acit-10(3), Private Ltd. Room No.451, बनाम/ Industrial Area Katay Ghat Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Road, Katni M.K.Road, (M.P.)-483501 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaecm4903B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Kantilal Gugalia राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri K.V. Vispute-Dr

Section 40A(2)(b)

…usiness man and the 5 M/s Mahakoshal Refractories Private Ltd. Assessing Officer is not expected to sit on the chair of the business man. Our view find supports from the decision from Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Voltmap Transformers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (1981) 129 ITR 105, 113(Guj.). The ratio laid down in Anand G. Shah vs CIT (1990) 181 ITR 171, wherein the assessee firm paid interest at the rate of 24%, per annum to the son and wife of its two partners. The Tribunal found that interest at the rate of 18% as reasonable. This case supports the case of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and the judicia…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. S.K. Sharma Contractor, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri L.M. Aggarwal, C.A
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40

…i). M/s. Ashok Kumar & Co. vs. ITO (2004) 2 SOT 518 (Asr.)(SMC) (iii). M/s. CM Francis & Co. (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1970) 11 449 Kerela High Court (iv). Sh. Imran Ahmed vs. CIT (1982) Tax LR (NOC) III Alld. H.C. (v). M/s. Valtamp Transporter (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 105, 113, Guj. HC (vi). CIT vs. Dalmia Contract (Bharat) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 Del. HC (vii). Hemraj Nebhomal & Sons vs. CIT(2005) 146 Taxman 345 MP HC (viii). S. Gurlal Singh Tuli vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 365 (ITAT Nagpur) (ix). ACIT vs. LMP Tractor(P) Ltd. (2005) 148 Taxman 52(Mag.) Ahd. ITAT (x). M/s. Vishal Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, 104 ITD 5…

DCIT 10(2), Mumbai vs. Aarvi Encon P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5347/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अिधकरण " ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह , "याियक सद"य एवं एवं एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं Before S/Sh. Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.5347/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. CIT-10-(2) Vs. M/s. Aarvi Encon Pvt. Ltd. Room No.432, 4th Floor, Unit No.155, 1st Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Shah & Nahar Indl. Estate(A 1) Mumba…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…− CIT vs. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd.:210 Taxman 161 (Del) − CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd: 337 ITR 103 (Del.) − CIT vs. Forbes Tea Brokers: 315 ITR 405 (Mad.) − CIT v. Modi Xerox Ltd.: ITA No.31/2001/ Lex Doc Id 405888 (All.) − Voltamp Transformers (P) Limited v. CIT: 129 ITR 105 (Guj.) − CIT v. Aditya Medisales Ltd.: ITA No. 559/2009 (Guj.) − CIT v. Gopala Polyplast Ltd. : ITA NO. 265/2009 (Guj.) − JCIT v. ITC Ltd.: 112 ITD 57 (Kol.)(SB) − Jagdamba Rollers Flour Mill Ltd. vs ACIT: 117 ITD 260(TM) (Nag.) − Aradhana Beverages & Foods Co. (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT:51 SOT 426 (Del) − S.K. Engg vs. JCIT: 103 ITD 97 (Bang.) − Rangoon…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Expo Mecanique Marketing Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any

ITA - 1154 / 2010HC Delhi17 Aug 2010
Section 260ASection 40Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(B)

…d by the aforesaid order of the first appellate authority, the assessee preferred the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal took note of the decisions rendered in Shahzada Nand and Sons v. CIT, 108 ITR 358(SC), Voltamp Transformers P. Ltd. v. CIT, 129 ITR 105 (Gujarat) and CIT v. Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd., 181 ITR 230 (Delhi) and came to hold that the payment to a director depends on his experience and educational qualification and the payment of salary cannot be valued as in the case of goods and services. The tribunal further opined that the payment of salary is payable according t…