NDLI: M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Income Tax Act 1961 Disallowance of service charges Assessee claiming benefit
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Income Tax Act, 1961: Disallowance of service charges - Assessee claiming benefit of disallowance of service charges paid to the Company - Assessing C officer as also CIT disallowed the said claim relying on the explanation submitted for the previous assessment year and the failure of assessee to furnish proof of service rendered by the company in the relevant assessment year - However, the tribunal deleting the disallowance of service charges paid - High Court set aside the order of the tribunal - On appeal, held: If service had been rendered to the assessee by the Company during the period under assessment and service charges had been paid for such service rendered, it was incumbent on the part of the assessee to adduce proof of such service having been rendered during the period under assessment which the assessee failed to do so - Thus, the High Court was justified in setting aside the conclusion of the tribunal. Loss shown by the assessee in the film business - Deduction - Claim of - Rejected by Assessing Officer and CIT, however, the tribunal allowed the deduction taking into account the view recorded in the another proceeding by tribunal in case of a sister concern - High Court held that the view taken by the tribunal in the matter of sister concern untenable and set aside the order of the tribunal - On appeal, held: Having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the "investment" was made and "loss" claimed, the view taken by the High Court that the entire transaction was a sham transaction and was a calculated device to avoid tax liability cannot be faulted with. Donation made to Ashram by assessee - Claim of deduction - Refused by Primary and First Appellate Authority on the ground that the necessary certificate showing that the done had complied with the conditions subject to which registration was granted to it u/s. 35(2A) not produced by assessee - Tribunal allowing the assessee" s claim for deduction holding that the said conditions were not material - High Court allowed revenue's appeal holding that the said conditions were necessary preconditions to grant of statutory registration and had to be satisfied - On appeal, held: No such certificate had been furnished by assessee and also that all Authorities have consistently held that if and when such certificate is produced the consequential benefit can be afforded to the assessee - Thus, the view taken by High Court that assessee was not entitled to the benefit of donation made to donee was correct s. 256(2) - Statement of case to the High Court - Reference power - Exercise of by High Court - Held: It is the tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and it is beyond the power of the High Court in the exercise of its reference jurisdiction to reconsider such findings on a reappraisal of the evidence and materials on record unless a specific question with regard to an issue of fact being opposed to the weight of the materials on record is raised in the reference before the High Court - On facts, each relevant fact considered by the High Court to answer the questions referred to it on the claims of deduction raised by the assessee are acknowledged, admitted and undisputed facts - No fresh determination of facts found by the tribunal have been made by the High Court - However, the High Court took into account certain additional facts, already on record, which were however not taken note of by the tribunal to arrive at its findings - There was no departure from the basic facts found by the tribunal - Difference in the approach between the tribunal and the High Court, therefore, is not one relating to determination of new or additional facts but was merely one of emphasis on facts - This was an exercise within the jurisdiction of the High Court in the exercise of its reference power under the provisions of the Act.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Neutral Citation	2016 INSC 52
Petitioner	M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore
Respondent	The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore
SCR	[2016] 1 S.C.R. 187
Judgement Date	2016-01-18
Case Number	1964

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka. Bangalore Vs. M/s. Shaan Finance (p.) Ltd. Bangalore Etc.

Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

M/s. Mcdowell & Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Central, Bangalore

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Induflex Products (p) Ltd.

M/s. Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Ii Calcutta Vs. M/s. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd.

M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala State

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Excel Industries Ltd.

Ramnath & Co. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore

M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka. Bangalore Vs. M/s. Shaan Finance (p.) Ltd. Bangalore Etc.

Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

M/s. Mcdowell & Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Central, Bangalore

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore Vs. M/s. Induflex Products (p) Ltd.

M/s. Palam Gas Service Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Ii Calcutta Vs. M/s. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd.

M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala State

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Excel Industries Ltd.

Ramnath & Co. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore