N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the addition on account of purchases without consideration was not justified as the assessee provided evidence of actual purchases and payments. Regarding Section 14A, no disallowance was warranted in the absence of exempt income.
What were the facts?
The appeals concerned the treatment of losses from transactions on the NSEL platform and disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee argued that NSEL transactions were for availing finance and losses represented the cost of garnering funds.
What were the issues?
Whether losses from NSEL transactions were speculative and deductible, and whether disallowance under Section 14A was applicable without exempt income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO741 citing154 ITR 148 · 1985 · SC
- Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT621 citing400 ITR 409 · 1997
- CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.223 citing222 ITR 344 · 1996 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.164 citing404 ITR 1 · 2018 · SC
- Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT74 citing308 ITR 417 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd.48 citing68 Taxmann.com 289 · 2016 · HC
- AVM Ltd. v. CIT22 citing146 ITR 355 · 1984 · HC
- CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.6 citing4 Taxmann 204 · HC
- 370 ITR 5474 citing370 ITR 547 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMARMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:
These cross appeals have been filed by the Revenue and the Assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) of even dated 30
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), AhmedabadAhmedabad25 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on AVM Ltd. v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The tribunal held that the addition on account of purchases without consideration was not justified as the assessee provided evidence of actual purchases and payments. Regarding Section 14A, no disallowance was warranted...
- Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bhachau vs DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), AhmedabadAhmedabad12 Jan 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for expenses subject to TDS on actual payment basis if TDS is deducted and deposited. Regarding the loan waiver, the Tribunal found that it was not taxable und...
- M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore21 Jan 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the waiver of the principal portion of term loans taken for capital assets is a capital receipt and not taxable. However, waiver of other types of loans like overdrafts, letters of credit, etc., us...
- Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl CIT RG 2(2), MumbaiMumbai29 Oct 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the commission payment disallowance was to be upheld, following previous years' decisions against the assessee. However, the disallowance for the employee welfare fund contribution was set aside, a...
- M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New… vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi8 Nov 2019Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the acquisition of shares by the assessee companies was an investment and not a business transaction that generated income. The premium paid by the foreign investor did not constitute a benefit or ...
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
