(1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite (1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite (1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT (135 ITR 698), spanning 2016 to 2021.

135 ITR 698High Court1982#9372 most cited

What is (1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Where a business has a mixed fund of own and borrowed money, there is no presumption that payments are made solely from borrowed funds, particularly when advances are made from mixed bank accounts where current sales receipts are credited.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT · 135 ITR 698 · mixed funds · borrowed funds · own funds · presumption of payment · advances · bank accounts · section 36(1)(iii) · interest disallowance

Judgments citing (1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Eih Associated Hotels Limited (Successor in Interest to Indus Hotels Corp. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1433/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 14A

…that even if the overdraft account had a debit balance, the earlier conclusion should not have been different. In coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court had relied on a plethora of decisions held by the same Court earlier, such as, in 132 ITR 219, 135 ITR 698, 147 ITR 392 & 161 ITR 820. It was argued by the AR that the advances were made out of mixed bank accounts where the receipts out of current sales were credited. The AR had also submitted that apart from showing the years in which the advances were made, which were earlier to the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal it was s…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&

Section 143(3)Section 147

…wing decisions: 51 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016  CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Limited [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bombay)  Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 219 (Calcutta)  Reckitt & Coleman of India vs. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 698 (Calcutta)  India Explosives Ltd. vs. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 392 (Calcutta)  Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. vs. [1986] 161 ITR 820 (Calcutta)  British Paints (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 196 (Calcutta)  Consolidated Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT [1996] 57 ITD 286 (Madras)  Durametallic (India) Ltd. vs. IAC [1991] 38 ITD 211 (Madr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Cable Industries, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4145/Del/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…at if there is mixed kitty of funds which consists own funds and borrowed funds, there is no presumption that payment is out of borrowed funds only: a) Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 219 (Cal) b) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 698 (Cal) c) Indian Explosives Ltd. vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 392 (Cal) d) British Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 196 (Cal) e) Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 72 ITD 1 11 f) Alkali and Chemical Corporation India Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AR submitted that in fact interest cannot be disallow…

M/S. Hella India Lighting Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1109/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Hella India Lighting Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-13, Badarpur Extension, Circle-11(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacj0101G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd December, 2014 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 11(1), New Delhi U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The It Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Automobile Components Including Head Lamps, Tail Lamps, Horns Switches, Bulbs, Sundry Lamps, Wiper Arms & Wiper Blades. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 5Th October, 2010 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.1,46,71,148/-. Since The Assessee Has Undertaken International Transactions With Its Ae, The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 40a

…decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Givo Ltd. and various other decisions filed in the case law compilation. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) 192 ITR 165 (Kar.); ii) 295 CTR 448 (P&H); iii) 134 ITR 219 (Cal); and iv) 135 ITR 698. 26. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of the A.O./TPO/DRP. 18 27. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the A.O. and DRP. We find the Assessing Officer, in the instant case, invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) and Explanation 8 to section 43(1), made an add…

Tata Tea Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C Ircle- 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 511/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Sheth & Prasun Kr. Maity, ARsFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 143(3)

…the submissions made before the ld AO and apart from that, relied on the following decisions in support of its proposition :- (a) Woolcombers of India Ltd vs CIT reported in (1982) 134 ITR 219 (Cal) (b) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd vs CIT reported in (1982) 135 ITR 698 (Cal) (c ) Indian Explosives Ltd vs CIT reported in (1983) 147 ITR 392 (Cal) Tata Tea Ltd. (New Name Tata Global Beverage Ltd.), AY 2004-05 The ld CITA relying on the earlier order of his predecessor for the Asst Year 2000-01 confirmed the disallowance of notional interest amounting to Rs. 118.71 lakhs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before…

DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Tea Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2105/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri Manish Sheth & Prasun Kr. Maity, ARsFor Respondent: N o n e

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…ndian Explosives Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 35 CTR (Cal) 244 : (1984) 147 ITR 392 (Cal), Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (Cal) 139 : (1986) 161 ITR 820 (Cal) and Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 24 : (1982) 135 ITR 698 (Cal) followed. ITA Nos.1124/Kol/2010 & C.O.No.78/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT. Cir-8, Kol. vs. M/s Tata Ryerson Ltd. ITA Nos.379&303/Kol/2012 A.Y.2008-09 Page 19 Assessee having made interest-free advance to a firm against supply of raw materials, the advance was made for the purpose of business; further, the advance was given from the mixed acco…

Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Ryerson Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Merind Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 905/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri. M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Merind Limited. The ACIT Central Circle -14, Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandup (West), M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Mumbai- 400 078. Vs. PAN: AAACM2735P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. M.P.Lohia Respondent by : Shri. M. Rajan Date of Hearing: 08/08/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 12/08/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 22/11/2010 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals…

Merind Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 904/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2002-03 Merind Limited, Acit Range- 10(3), Mulund Goregaon Link Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Bhandup (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400078 Pan: Aaacm2735P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri K P R R Murty (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 35Section 36(1)(iii)

…unal in the case of Grasirn Industries Vs DCIT 64 TTJ 357(Mum) has been held as under: "Having regard to the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the cases of Woolcombers of India Ltd. Vs CIT 134 ITR. 217 (Cal), Reckitt & Colman of India Vs. CIT 135 ITR 698 (Cal.) and other authorities and position of deposits out of profit and own funds in the common account being more than withdrawals, the investment 4 ITA No. 904/M/2011 – Merind Limited. in securities was to be presumed to be made by the assessee out of its own funds and not of borrowings. The AO wrongly placed onus on the assessee to link the…