131 ITR 37 and Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

96 ITR 438High Court1974#10842 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing 131 ITR 37 and Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…g balance (credit) as on 31.03.2012. It was held that non- mentioning of precise provision of law makes the impugned addition bad in law, Apart from above the Appellant also relied on 4 Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. • Steel and Geneva Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 438(Del) • Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 54 ITR 167(Guj) Appellant held that AO passed the order without any application of mind and without providing any basis for making addition of Outstanding Creditors to total income of Appellant. 7.2 a) The issue of Remission or cessation of a trading liability i.e. applicability of clause (a) of subsection…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELMOS AVIATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

…rought on record to establish that the deduction was claimed or credit balance has been remitted, addition cannot be made u/s 41 (1) in view of the following decisions: Page 7 of 17 ACIT vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd. • Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs CIT 96 ITR 438(Del) CIT vs Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P Ltd vs CIT 114 ITR 853(Karn) K.V. Moosa Koya & Co vs CIT 175 ITR 120,124(Ker) CIT vs Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756(Guj). 6.8 The third burden which was on A.O. was to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened in the year under appeal. After all, liab…

KAMLA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Kamla Developers V. Acit– 25(2) B-5, Parekh Apartment Room No. 508, C-10 Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W) Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400056 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaffk9156Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore : Shri Brajendra Kumar Department By Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…1(1) of the Act deeming it as income of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - a. CCIT v. Kesaria Tea company [20 SITC 172] b. Tirunelveli Motor Buus Service Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT [78 ITR 55] c. Steel & General Mills Co. Ltd., v. CIT [96 ITR 438] 13. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 8 M/s. Kamla Developers 14. Heard rival submissions, perused orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On a perusal of the Assessment Order, I find that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the advance amount given by the “The Greater Bombay Veerashaiv…

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1438/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…judgment. In our case, CIT(A) in our case has also doubted the genuineness of the credit entry appeared in partner's accounts by referring of pastS years assessment order even though assessee has discharged the onus in respective years. • Delhi High Court in 96 ITR 438 wherein, it is held that the onus is on department to prove that, there is cessation of the liability. In our case, CIT(A) has doubted the existence of liability in past years and therefore, he failed to discharge the onus. ITA nos.1438 & 2534/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 12 • Attention is drawn to 12 Taxmann.com 46 (Ahmedabad) in the case of Bh…

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 41(1)

…the question! that the impugned amount was never allowed has deduction in the earlier year. In this regard, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Foolchand Jivanram (1981) reported at 131 ITR 37 and Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1974) reported at 96 ITR 438 (Del), has held that the burden lies upon the Department to prove that an allowance or deduction had been given for relevant amount to the assessee in the earlier assessment years. This burden will be discharged only if revenue produces positive evidence and does not rely upon probabilities and extraneous circumstances. It is further held by Hon'b…

SH. LOK NATH NARANG, PROP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

ITA 6708/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblelok Nath Narang, Prop. Vs Ito C/O. M/S. Rra Tax India, Ward-2(1) D-28, South Extension, Part-I Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Adrpn8014H

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 41(1)Section 68

…n. In the absence of any material having been brought on record to establish that the deduction was claimed or credit balance has been remitted, addition cannot be made u/s 41(1) in view of the following decisions : i. Steel and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 96 ITR 438 (Del) ii. CIT vs. Nathubhai Desha Bhai 130 ITR 238 (MP) iii. Liquidator, Mysore Agencies P. Ltd. vs. CIT 114 ITR 853 (Karn) iv. K.V.Moosa Koya & Co vs. CIT 175 ITR 120, 124 (Ker) v. CIT vs. Pranlal P Doshi 201 ITR 756 (Guj) 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that cessation if at all has happened, has happened i…

DBS BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1606/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar

Section 271(1)

…e year represents amounts which were disallowed in earlier assessment year and therefore should be allowable in the year of written back. The ld AR in support of submission relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Steel and General Mills Co Ltd(96 ITR 438) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Nathabhai Desabhai (130 ITR 238). On the other hand the learned DR for the revenue supported the order of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and further gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer disallowed the provisions for standard asset…

SHANTI LAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…nt in any previous year, it is not open to the Revenue to invoke section 41(1). Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 55 (SC). Further, in steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 438 (Delhi) it has been held that burden lies upon the department to prove that an allowance or deduction had been given for this amount to the assessee in the earlier Assessment Years. ITA 73/JP/2016_ 10 Shanti Lal Bahndari Vs ITO e) Your honour the Ld. AO mention the case law of Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S, T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons…

DBS BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) RG 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 8671/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakar Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwalla

Section 254(1)Section 37Section 44C

…ITA No.8671/M/2010, ITA No. 434/M/2011 CO No.250/M/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8671/Mum/2010 for (Assessment Year: 2005-06) DBS Bank Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Fort House, Income Tax -(International 221, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Taxation), Range -1(2), Vs. 1st Floor Scindia House, Mumbai- 400001 N.M. Marg , Ballard Estate, PAN: AAACT4652J Mumbai -400038 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.434/Mum/2011 for (Assessment Year: 2005-06) C.O. No. 250/M/2012 in ITA No. 434/M/2011…

M/S A.S. SYNDICATE WAREHOUSING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD -11(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2095/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…f this argument:- (i) CIT –vs.- Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Limited [236 ITR 518 (SC)]; (ii) Goodricke Group Limited –vs.- CIT [338 ITR 116 (Cal.)]; (iii) CIT –vs.- Chougule & Co. (P) Limited [189 ITR 473 (Bom.)]; (iv) Steel and General Mills Co. Limited –vs.-CIT[96 ITR 438 (Del]; (v) CIT –vs.- Ancherry Pauoo Kakku [1986] 160 ITR 88 (Ker.); (vi) Ambica Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [54 ITR 167 (Guj.)]; (vii) CIT –vs.- Silver Cotton Mills Co. Limited [254 ITR 728 (Guj.). The ld. A.R. also filed additional evidence together with the prayer for receipt of additional evidence showing the evidence for writing back of this liab…