Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.06 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Edward Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. on 13 November, 1979
In CIT Vs. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 370, the Calcutta High Court
considering identical provision in 1922 Act, it was held that the section places two
limitations in the matter of exercise of the power. The section enjoins the Assessing
Officer in forming any opinion as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the
expenditure incurred must take into consideration (i) the legitimate business needs
of the company and (ii) the benefit derived by or accruing to the company. The
30
legitimate business needs of the company must be judged from the view point of the
company itself and must be viewed from the point of view of a prudent
businessman. It is not for the Assessing Officer to dictate what the business needs of
the company should be and he is only to judge the legitimacy of the business needs
of the company from the point of view of a prudent businessman. The benefit
derived or accruing to the company must also be considered from the angle of a
prudent businessman. The term "benefit" to a company in relation to its business, it
must be remembered, has a very wide connotation and may not necessarily be
capable of being accurately measured in terms of pound, shillings and pence in all
cases. Both these aspects have to be considered judiciously, dispassionately without
any bias of any kind from the view-point of a reasonable and honest person in
business.
Commisioner Of Income Tax Delhi-I, New ... vs Bharti Televenture Ltd. Qutab ... on 3 January, 2011
- CIT v. Bharti Televentures Ltd: 331 ITR 502 (Del)
Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012
- CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd. : ITA No. 1068/2011 & 1070/2011 (Del HC)
It was further submitted that for invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of
the Act, the onus lies upon the assessing officer to prove that the payment is
excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of goods or
legitimate needs of the business, as has been held in the following decisions:
Cit vs Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd. on 29 August, 2012
- CIT vs. Modi Revlon (P.) Ltd.:210 Taxman 161 (Del)
Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nestle India Ltd. on 10 January, 2005
- CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd: 337 ITR 103 (Del.)
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S.Forbes Tea Brokers on 30 June, 2009
- CIT vs. Forbes Tea Brokers: 315 ITR 405 (Mad.)
Commissioner Of Income Tax Meerut & Anr. vs M/S Modi Xerox Ltd. on 6 August, 2012
- CIT v. Modi Xerox Ltd.: ITA No.31120011 Lex Doc Id 405888 (All.)
Voltamp Transformers P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 9 October, 1980
- Voltamp Transformers (P) Limited v. CIT: 129 ITR 105 (Guj.)
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri. Gopala Naicker Bangaru on 21 July, 2010
- CIT v. Gopala Polyp last Ltd. : ITA NO. 26512009 (Guj.)