Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal decision: Revenue appeal partly allowed, assessee cross-objections dismissed. CIT(A)'s decision upheld.

        Income-Tax Officer. Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA.

        Income-Tax Officer. Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA. - TTJ 123, 813, Issues Involved:
        1. Deletion of disallowance of claim of license fee payable to Railway authorities.
        2. Deletion of disallowance of excessive payment made to M/s Nikita Enterprises by invoking provisions of s. 40A(2).
        3. Issuance of notice under s. 148 and consequent reassessment framed under s. 147 of the Act.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Deletion of Disallowance of Claim of License Fee Payable to Railway Authorities:

        The assessee, engaged in the business of storage and handling of liquids and solids, had been allotted land by the Railways under agreements dated 15th March 1975 and 3rd January 1978, requiring payment of license fees. The Railways issued a letter on 23rd March 1988, terminating the license due to non-payment of dues and unauthorized structures, and provisionally increased the license fee to Rs. 7,07,065 per annum. The dispute was taken to the Estate Officer (Land), Northern Railways, who concluded that the enhancement was invalid and the assessee was not in unauthorized occupation. The Estate Officer's order, dated 28th March 1990, was not stayed or disturbed by any higher court, although the Railways appealed to the District Judge, Tis Hazari Court, which is still pending.

        The AO, during the assessment for AY 2001-02, disallowed the increased license fee claimed by the assessee, considering it a contingent liability as the payment was subject to the court's decision. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening of assessments but allowed the license fee deduction, considering it an actual liability under the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal, however, held that the increased liability was contingent upon the court's decision and not allowable as it had not crystallized during the relevant financial years. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's decision to disallow the increased license fee.

        2. Deletion of Disallowance of Excessive Payment Made to M/s Nikita Enterprises by Invoking Provisions of s. 40A(2):

        The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Nikita Enterprises to handle warehousing for Hindustan Coca Cola Northwest (P) Ltd. The AO disallowed the difference between the payment made to M/s Nikita Enterprises and the expenses incurred by them, considering it excessive. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the payment was not excessive or unreasonable, and the services were actually rendered.

        The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not ascertain the fair market value of the services and failed to prove that the payment was excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal emphasized that the onus to prove the excessiveness of the payment under s. 40A(2) rests on the AO.

        3. Issuance of Notice under s. 148 and Consequent Reassessment Framed under s. 147 of the Act:

        The assessee challenged the issuance of notice under s. 148 and the consequent reassessment framed under s. 147. The AO reopened the assessments for AYs 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2002-03 based on the observation that the assessee had claimed excess deduction by way of license fee payable to Railways. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that the original assessments were not completed under s. 143(3) but accepted under s. 143(1)(a), and there was no change of opinion.

        The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessments, noting that the AO had relevant material to form a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's belief need not be conclusively proven at the stage of issuing the notice, and the reopening was justified based on the information available.

        Conclusion:

        The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals by upholding the disallowance of the increased license fee but dismissed the cross-objections by the assessee regarding the issuance of notice under s. 148 and the consequent reassessment framed under s. 147. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of payments made to M/s Nikita Enterprises under s. 40A(2).

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found