← All Phrases

“illegal payment”

Business ExpensesSection 37 ExplanationSection 37 Explanation87 judgments

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 302/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 300Section 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

ITA 300/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 2 12 & 2012-13, respectively. The assessee has also filed cross objections arising out of

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

ITA 293/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (Α.Υ :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राँची न्यायपीठ, राँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from ... Supreme Court's order in the case of Abhisar Buildwell. There was incriminating material which pointed out to inadmissible expenditure in the form of illegal payments made to various persons. Based on these incriminating material, the AO assumed jurisdiction to reassess the total income. In the process he took into

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

recorded from Sri.Kaushal Kumar Verma, VP (Accounts & Finance). He has admitted that expenditure booked under the head 'establishment expenses' are in the nature of illegal payments which are inadmissible amounting to Rs.6,68,30,289/- for various FYs in the case of BNHL. A Sworn statement was also recorded from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. K S PALANISAMY, ERODE

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

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

vide ANN/MPK/NS/B&D/S-19 & 20 containing date-wise notings of the amounts paid to persons in public service were seized. The table containing list of illegal payments made on various dates to the public service has been extracted at page 9 of the assessment order, carrying an initial “Trichy Coll” signifies ... Collector and the assessee Shri K.S. Palaniswamy was the then Trichy Collector in the State of Tamil Nadu during the period in which alleged illegal payments made. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had been granted opportunities to furnish reply to the queries raised and to offer

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 978/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

from the various sub- contractor/cement, steel vendors etc. after making payment to them through banking channel. The cash back received was utilized for making illegal payment to the various officials. In this regard, the AO referred to the loose sheets found from the possession of the CA Shri Lakhmikantha ... assessee company namely Shri Balasubramanian confirming the fact that the unaccounted cash was generated through recording the bogus expenditure which was utilized for making illegal payment and personal expenditure. 12.4 The AO further noted that the documents seized from the premises of Shri PV Rao marked as loose sheet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1190/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)

from the various sub- contractor/cement, steel vendors etc. after making payment to them through banking channel. The cash back received was utilized for making illegal payment to the various officials. In this regard, the AO referred to the loose sheets found from the possession of the CA Shri Lakhmikantha ... assessee company namely Shri Balasubramanian confirming the fact that the unaccounted cash was generated through recording the bogus expenditure which was utilized for making illegal payment and personal expenditure. 12.4 The AO further noted that the documents seized from the premises of Shri PV Rao marked as loose sheet

CHILD DESIRE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 160/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Raviteja Bunga, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Srinandini Das, D.R
Section 12ASection 80G

also agree with the contention of the AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(E) could not pointed out any bogus or illegal payment of Employee benefit expenses except by saying that the quantum did not appear justifiable against receipts. Further, we are of the considered opinion that section

CHILD DESIRE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 159/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Raviteja Bunga, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Srinandini Das, D.R
Section 12ASection 80G

also agree with the contention of the AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(E) could not pointed out any bogus or illegal payment of Employee benefit expenses except by saying that the quantum did not appear justifiable against receipts. Further, we are of the considered opinion that section

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAXIMAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalthe Acit, Circle 16(2) Vs. Maximal Infrastructure Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Private Limited C.R. Building, I.P. Estate R-13, 2Nd Floor, Greater New Delhi – 110002 Kailash-1 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacct3615R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajkumari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Virender Kumar Singh, Sr
Section 143Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 Maximal Infrastructure Private Limited THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

grounds, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the amounts which are alleged to be incurred by the Trust are not illegal payments but are payments to ensure that the Appellant does not suffer loss due to loss of vacant management quota seats. 9. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

grounds, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the amounts which are alleged to be incurred by the Trust are not illegal payments but are payments to ensure that the Page 4 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 Appellant does not suffer loss due to loss of vacant

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 394/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40ASection 69Section 69C

this para a show cause was issued to the assessee based on the observations of the special auditor as unexplained/not accounted for expenditure including illegal payments made by the assessee (Annexure-4 of the Special Audit Report). On this issue, in the first round of appeal ... part of Annexure 4 of the special audit report, the special auditor has stated that these are pool payments and in the nature of illegal payments made to functionaries of RIICO by the assessee. Only distinction that we observe here is that unlike entries at transactions reported at item

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA RAJASHTAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 114/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarsubhash Pareta, 3/148, Basant Vihar, Dada Bari, Ganesh Talab, Kota - 324009 Pan No. Aggpp4046H ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr.P.C. PARWAL, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. ANITA RINESH, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142Section 250Section 40ASection 69Section 69C

this para a show cause was issued to the assessee based on the observations of the special auditor as unexplained/not accounted for expenditure including illegal payments made by the assessee (Annexure-4 of the Special Audit Report). On this issue, in the first round of appeal ... part of Annexure 4 of the special audit report, the special auditor has stated that these are pool payments and in the nature of illegal payments made to functionaries of RIICO by the assessee. Only distinction that we observe here is that unlike entries at transactions reported at item

DEV BHUMI DOLD CHAIN PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3163/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

goods from one place to another to avoid damage of the goods. It was submitted that these expenditure/payments could not be termed as illegal payments as substantial part of this expenditure were incurred for repairs & maintenance of vehicles, gate fee, weighment charges, etc. It was contended that such expenses were

Showing 1–20 of 87 · Page 1 of 5

illegal payment — 87 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax