Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)
Windsor Machines Ltd., Thane vs Dcit Cir. - 3, Thane on 6 November, 2018 cites

Cit vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. on 18 January, 2007

It was submitted that the assessee has turnover of more than Rs. 200 crores and these are expenses of 7 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 around Rs. 83 lakhs which were incurred for repairing and maintenance of factory building which was hit by cyclone. It was submitted that the object was to restore the building to original level and no additions were made to the building . Our attention was drawn to para 6.2 of Ld. CIT(A) appellate order and it was submitted that these are genuine expense although the same were treated as capital in nature. it was submitted that if these expenses are allowed as revenue expenses then in that case depreciation which was earlier allowed can be reversed by Revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 131 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006

However, The findings of learned CIT(A) that payments were made to ladies and hence it cannot be allowed is erroneous and violates Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which needs to be discarded at threshold, unless cogent material is brought on record by Revenue to prove that these commission expenses claimed were sham/bogus expenses claimed only to reduce the tax- liability or these expenses were infact not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee or the said 25 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 expenses were either personal or capital in nature , thus not satisfying the mandate of Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, commission payments cannot be simply discarded on the grounds that it is of higher amount as was done by learned CIT(A) unless the said commission is held to be unconscionably high for which finding of fact has to be brought on record backed by cogent incriminating material to discredit the version of the assessee . The doctrine of commercial expediency will set in and the Revenue cannot be allowed to sit in the arm chair of the businessmen unless the boundaries of commercial expediency are transgressed . Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) and also recent decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case E-baotech India Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA no. 549/Mum/2016(para 14). Under these circumstances keeping in view totality of the circumstances as detailed above as also that the facts itself are disputed by both the parties which need verification by authorities as to whether deduction/payment of Income-tax at source was undertaken with respect to payment of commission of Rs. 99,09,655/- being hit by provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) , non consideration of CBDT circular no. 7/2009 dated 22nd October 2009 withdrawing CBDT circular no. 23 dated 23.07.1969 so far as payments of commission expenses to foreign agents, we are of the considered view that in substantial interest of justice and in all fairness to both the parties, the matter need to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for denovo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law. We have not commented on the merits of the issue but however our above observations shall be considered by the AO while adjudicating the issue's. Needless to say that the AO shall grant proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The AO shall admit all evidences/contentions submitted by the assessee in its defence in de-novo proceedings. We order accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1104 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 Next