Keyursinh Ranjitsinh Parmar vs ITO, Ward-5(1)(2) Ahmedabad

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee received income of Rs.17,46,272/- and claimed expenses of Rs.9,83,333/- towards expenses. The AO treated the income under the head 'Income from Business or Profession', but disallowed the expenses claimed on account of staff salary and the driver expenses. The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.3.2023 for the Asst.Year 2013-14 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the commission income should be treated as business income or income from other sources.
• 2. Whether the expenses claimed by the assessee should be allowed.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Sudheer Chirania Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 23(3)(7), Mumbai

• Cairs Computer Aided Information and Research Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd.

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19Dismissed

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench

  Mumbai bench

• Om Sri Maa Shakti Naman Vs. Asst. CIT Circle -32(2)

  Mumbai bench

• Udai Parnami vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

  Jaipur bench