Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Ito, Baraut vs Tulsi Ram Bhagwan Dass on 13 June, 2005 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. If the cash amounts allegedly kept inside the almirah has ever been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business, it should have been easy to establish the same with reference to cash flow statements. No such material has been relied upon by the assessee instead the assessee has based his claim on general platitudes that assessee knows his interest better and he should be allowed to run his business in the manner he feels like. In short, the assessee has attempted to base his claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The learned CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee's submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/ evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 634 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 817 (Bom.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 223 - H J Kania - Full Document

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... on 20 September, 1966

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. If the cash amounts allegedly kept inside the almirah has ever been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business, it should have been easy to establish the same with reference to cash flow statements. No such material has been relied upon by the assessee instead the assessee has based his claim on general platitudes that assessee knows his interest better and he should be allowed to run his business in the manner he feels like. In short, the assessee has attempted to base his claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The learned CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee's submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/ evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 634 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 817 (Bom.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 259 - J C Shah - Full Document

Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... on 3 September, 1968

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. If the cash amounts allegedly kept inside the almirah has ever been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business, it should have been easy to establish the same with reference to cash flow statements. No such material has been relied upon by the assessee instead the assessee has based his claim on general platitudes that assessee knows his interest better and he should be allowed to run his business in the manner he feels like. In short, the assessee has attempted to base his claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The learned CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee's submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/ evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 634 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 817 (Bom.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 100 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 30 September, 2002

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. If the cash amounts allegedly kept inside the almirah has ever been used by the assessee for the purpose of his business, it should have been easy to establish the same with reference to cash flow statements. No such material has been relied upon by the assessee instead the assessee has based his claim on general platitudes that assessee knows his interest better and he should be allowed to run his business in the manner he feels like. In short, the assessee has attempted to base his claim of deduction on arguments as a substitute of material/evidence. The learned CIT(A) clearly erred in taking the assessee's submissions at its face value without there being corresponding material/ evidence. It is firmly established position that the burden to establish business purpose of an expenditure lays on the assessee entirely. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments in CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (1951) 19 ITR 191 (SC); Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 57 (SC); Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 634 (SC); CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 817 (Bom.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 36 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta, ... vs Imperial Chemical Industries (India) ... on 20 February, 1969

and CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 17 (SC). In the absence of any specific material, it is not possible to hold that the assessee had been maintaining huge cash in his almirah for the purpose of his business only. The assessee might have intended to utilize this cash if it was indeed there for any other purpose. As the assessee failed to establish any nexus between the cash borrowings and business purpose, the learned assessing officer rightly disallowed the assessee's claim of, deduction and the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction merely on the basis of some general observations. 1, therefore, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the disallowance as made in the assessment order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 254 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Super Tannery (India) Ltd. on 11 August, 2004

4. During the course of hearing before me, the learned DR argued that under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii), deduction was allowable only in respect of the borrowed amounts utilized for the business of the assessee. The assessee had not produced any evidence at any stage that the cash borrowings in question had ever been utilized in the business of the assessee. As against it, the turn over and other aspects of trading disclosed by the assessee clearly showed that the assessee did not require liquid funds of this magnitude. The learned Authorized Representative of the assessee argued that the assessing officer was not an expert in business. It was not for him to dictate as to how the assessee should conduct his business. He rehed on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Dy. CIT v. Super Tannery (India) Ltd. (2005) 274 ITR 338 (All.).
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - K N Ojha - Full Document
1