Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 βœ•
  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
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. Here it shows just a few of many results. To view list of all cases mentioning this section, Visit here

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Tribunal directs ITO to allow payments to financiers, deems them justified under trade practices.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the ITO to allow the entire payments to the financiers and adjust the partners' assessments ... - Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Rs. 1,164 under the head 'trading account as entertainment expenses'.2. Disallowance of Rs. 1,13,125 under the head 'trading account'.Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 1,164 under the head 'trading account as entertainment expenses'The ground relating to the disallowance of Rs. 1,164 under the head 'trading account as entertainment expenses' was not urged by the assessee at the time of hearing. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 1,13,125 under the head 'trading account'Facts:- The assessee, a registered firm, maintained books of account on a mercantile system of accounting. The previous year for the assessment year 1974-75 ended on 31st March 1974.- The business of the assessee, in its first year, involved film distribution.- On 12th March 1973, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Neptune Pictures (P) Ltd., Calcutta, for distribution and exploitation rights in the eastern circuit, sharing profits and losses equally.- The assessee agreed to meet the capital cost for acquiring the film 'Bobby' to the extent of Rs. 3,32,500 and remitted Rs. 2,00,000 as part of their share.Breakdown of Rs. 2,00,000:- Out of share capital: Rs. 14,000- By M/s. R.B. Films: Rs. 65,000- From financiers: Rs. 1,21,000Agreements with Financiers:- The financiers were Smt. Sushmita Nath, Smt. Margaret Rose Ryndem, Mr. Esther Joycee Ryndem, and Shri Bejoy Ryndem.- Agreements were made on various dates in March and April 1973, with commission rates ranging from 4% to 7%.Assessment and Disallowance:- The assessee earned Rs. 7,95,782, out of which Rs. 1,50,385 was paid to the financiers.- The ITO disallowed Rs. 1,37,125 out of Rs. 1,50,386, considering it 'excessive and unreasonable under s. 40A (2a) of the IT Act, 1961'.- The ITO allowed interest on the loans at 12% per annum, amounting to Rs. 13,261, and disallowed the balance.Appeal to AAC:- The AAC confirmed the addition, agreeing with the ITO that the commission payments were 'over excessive and totally unrelated to prevailing market conditions'.Arguments by Assessee:- The assessee argued that the payments to financiers were loans in the ordinary course of business.- The agreements and payments were not disputed, and the only question was whether they should be allowed in full or part.- The assessee cited trade practices and previous agreements where similar commissions were paid and accepted by the Revenue.- The terms of agreements with financiers were risky, and the commission was justified based on the nature and success of the film.- The assessee pointed out that the financiers' capital was at risk and highlighted the substantial benefit derived from the arrangement.Arguments by Revenue:- The Revenue supported the lower orders, arguing that the return was excessive and unreasonable.- It was suggested that the money might have belonged to the partners and found its way into the business through financiers.- The Revenue contended that finance could have been arranged from other sources at lower costs.Tribunal's Analysis:- The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's new angle suggesting the transactions were sham, as the ITO had treated the loans as genuine and allowed interest.- The Tribunal examined whether the payments were excessive or unreasonable under s. 40A (2a).- The assessee demonstrated that there was a trade custom for such agreements and that the payments were in line with legitimate business needs.- The Tribunal found that the assessee acted as a prudent businessman, and the substantial benefit derived justified the payments.- The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's arguments were untenable and reversed the AAC's order, directing the ITO to allow the entire payments to the financiers and recompute the income accordingly.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part, with the Tribunal directing the ITO to allow the entire payments to the financiers and amend the assessments of the partners accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found