180 ITR 45 (Del) and Narayanan Chettiar Industries v. ITO

277 ITR 426High Court2005#20271 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing 180 ITR 45 (Del) and Narayanan Chettiar Industries v. ITO

ITO Corporate Ward 6(1), Chennai vs. Scorpio Energy Resources Private Limited, Chennai

Accordingly, in view of the above, Ground No. 4 to 4.5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1368/Chny/2018 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

…d upon the Assessment Order, the Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A)and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Narayanan Chettiar Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer: 277 ITR 426 (Madras) and CIT Vs. Tamilnadu Wearhousing Corporation: 292 ITR 310 (Madras). 13. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of INR 3,84,24,175/- made by the Assessing Officer under Secti…

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1317/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(vd)Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…e in existence or if the assessee has changed on account of death of earlier assessee, the benefit received in subsequent year cannot be treated as income received by the assessee. 14. The Madras High Court in the case of Narayanan Chettiar Industries v. ITO, 277 ITR 426 (Mad) held that in respect of remission of liability, no addition can be made unless an allowance or deduction is allowed to the assessee in the previous year. After noting these facts, it was observed that from the records it was not clear whether any allowance or deduction was allowed to the assessee in the previous year. Hence the issue was re…

Ravindra Arunachala Nadar, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle-15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3363/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita N.: 3363/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ravindra Arunachala The Acit, Nadar, V. Non-Corporate Circle 15(1), No.161A, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Chennai. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. Pan: Adfpr1113B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri N. Anush Shanker, Ca & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit

For Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…hat there was nothing on record to lead to the conclusion that the advances from W had been claimed as an allowance or deduction in any previous year.” Similarly, the Madras High Court in the case of Narayanan Chettiary Industries vs. ITO, reported in [2005] 277 ITR 426, had an occasion to consider the issue in light of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and held that “section 41(1) creates a legal fiction and hence has to be strictly complied with if any addition to the income is sought to be made by the Revenue. Unless an allowance or deduction had been made in an earlier year in respect of loss, expenditu…

The Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1985/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1985/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., A-16, Administrative Building, Subhashchandra Bose Marg, Industrial Estate, Satpur, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422007 …. Pan: Aaaat3324K Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 80P(2)(a)

…of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (2012) 18 Taxman 47 (Del), 6 The Nashik Merchants Co-op Bank Ltd. CIT Vs. Lal Textile Finishing Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 180 ITR 45 (Del) and Narayanan Chettiar Industries Vs. ITO reported in 277 ITR 426 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court noted that in all those decisions, the various High Courts including the Division Bench of this Court consistently ruled that provision for doubtful debts written back has to be seen in the context of whether the provision had been allowed as deduction in order to determine the taxability at the later point o…