Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

31-10-2019, Indian Compressors, Section 37, 17(2), 15, Tribunal Delhi

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 weeks 4 days ago #11283 by amit
Section - 37, 17(2), 15, 16
Order Date - 31-10.2019
Favouring - Revenue
Court - Tribunal Delhi
Appellant - Indian Compressors Ltd.
Respondent - DCIT
Justice - SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA JM & O.P. KANT AM
Citation - 1119Taxpundit24
Appeal No. - ITA No.1558/Del/2017
Asstt. Year - 2012-13

Order

PER : O.P. KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 03/01/2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13 raising following grounds:

1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,93,24,080/- instead of Rs. 1,74,44,220/- as declared in the return of income.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner has erred in facts and in law in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer based on surmises and conjectures and ignoring relevant evidence placed on record.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,21,062/- incurred on foreign travel of a Director of the Appellant on the ground that there may be an element of personal and pleasure trip cannot be ruled out without bringing any other material fact on record.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, even if there was some personal element in the expenditure, disallowance of the whole sum cannot be made.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had incurred expenditure on the mediacl treatment of its Director Mr. G.L. Didwania only on the grounds of commercial expediency, so that it could continue to make use of his knowledge.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner in not appreciating the fact that Mr. G.L. Didwania was the founder of the appellant company and possessed immense know how and that it was in the Appellant’s interest to continue to utilise the knowledge and that it was commercially expcuiv*^ Appellant to incur this expenditure.

7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in holding that no evidence was provided to the AO when, to the contrary all medical bills were furnished to the AO.

8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in relying upon the fact that Mr. G.L. Didwania had not offered the sum to tax as perquisite when the fact had absolutely no bearing on the case of the Appellant.

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in not appreciating that the case laws quoted were directly applicable to the case of the Appellant.

10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in holding that the Appllant has not been able to provide complete details for requisite examination wheras in fact all details had been provided at the time of assessment and no specific detail has been said to not have been provided.

11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld., Commissioner erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,57,798/- on account of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of Mr. G.L. Didwania by merely stating that the case laws quoted were not applicable as each case turns on its own facts without actually distinguishing the set precedents.

12. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned addition and framing the impugned assessment order is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the principles of natural justice the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

13. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in 2\v and on facts in not reversing the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234 A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

14. That the appellant craves to leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds; are without prejudice the other.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing, trading, erection, commissioning, leasing and maintenance of various types of compressors. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 27/09/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 1,74,44,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the scrutiny assessment completed on 02/03/2015 under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of ₹ 3,21,065/- on account of expenses incurred on foreign travel and disallowance of medical expenses of ₹ 18,13,574/- on treatment of one of the directors of the assessee company. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowances. Aggrieved, the

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Indian Compressors Ltd. vs. DCIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.091 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT

Akrati Promoters And Developers vs. DCIT Read More
CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN

CIT vs. ANOOP JAIN Read More
PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI

PCIT vs. LALIT BAGAI  Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs. PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar