(41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT

203 ITR 304High Court1993#8462 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT

ANIDHI IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3998/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhanidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of It-4(1) C/O Asj & Company Llp, Room No. 638, Aaykar 201, Rajshila, 597, Jss Bhavan, Churchgate, Road, Near Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeca7748J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Amit Porwal Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2013 For A.Y. 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Ground Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 26.03.2019: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of A.O. Of Treating The Loss Of Rs.1,84,26,264/- Incurred On Mcx Transactions As Speculative Loss U/S 43 (5) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To Disallowance Of Expenses Rs. 7,851/; & Rs.1,62,819/- Incurred On Security Transaction Tax & Other Charges Of Mcx Respectively, Considered By The A.O. As Speculative. 3. Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To The Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs. 10,00,000/- By The A.O. On Estimation & Ad Hoc Basis Stating As Related To The Mcx Transactions & Hence Speculative In Nature, Without Even Confronting The Appellant Of This Proposed Action By Issuing Show Cause.

For Appellant: Amit PorwalFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(2)Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73

…in para 8. 2.3(g) There are several judicial pronouncements, wherein the concept of hedging transaction has been accepted and has been held to be the business loss. In this regard reliance can be placed on the judgments of CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1993) 203 ITR 304 (Guj), C.N.M.P. Investments (P) Ltd. vs Asstt. CIT (2001) 73 TTJ (Del) 826, CIT vs. Hotz Hotel Ltd (2003) 260 ITR 132 (Del), and ITO vs. Pali Ram Bhadarmal (2005) 95 TTJ (Jd) 1114. 2.3(h) In the instant case the appellant has not been able to demonstrate with evidences that the so called hedging transactions were undertaken to reduce the risk of…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOGEFI- MNR ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2089/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…al [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the judgments enumerated above, we are of the opinion tha…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1698/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…al [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the judgments enumerated above, we are of the opinion tha…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1697/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…al [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the judgments enumerated above, we are of the opinion tha…

M/S. SOGEFI ENGINE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1696/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…al [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the judgments enumerated above, we are of the opinion tha…

M/S SOGEFI MNR FILTRATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 757/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…al [1986] 160 ITR 243 (Raj.) etc.] or if the earlier bench omitted to consider certain material aspects [Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] (41 ITR 685 (SC); Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC); CIT v. Mohanlal Ranchhodas [1993] 203 ITR 304 (Guj.); CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 635 (Ker.). In the case of CIT v. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Kerala High Court have further stated that the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view of the matter on a closer and more intelligent analysis. 40. Thus, from the judgments enumerated above, we are of the opinion tha…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…rse transaction of the forward market itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22: (1993(203 ITR 304 (Guj). This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234: (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be specula…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 8, MUMBAI

In the result the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. V. Asst. Cit, Cc 8, Bhaktawar, 6Th Floor, Old Cgo Blgd, 8Th Floor, Near Church Gate, 229, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 80HSection 80I

…rse transaction of the forward market itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22: (1993(203 ITR 304 (Guj). This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234: (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be specula…

ACIT CC-8, MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward Page 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be spec…

ACIT CC.8, MUMBAI vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3885/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward Page 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be spec…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3818/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward Page 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be spec…

ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI vs. M/S. JINDAL DRUGS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4342/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward Page 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be spec…

JINDAL DRUGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. M/S. ACIT CEN CIR-8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: - 2005-06 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel 229, Nariman Point, – 8 Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Appellant Respondent Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Assessment Year: - 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs.` Jindal Drugs Limited Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, B&C, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8 229, Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg, Annexe, Mumbai – 400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: - 2006-07 Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bakhtawar, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circel – 8, B&C, Aaykar Bhavan, 229, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1000A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…itself. It is not essential that in order to be a genuine hedging transaction there must be a ready purchase and forward Page 22 of 39 23 Jindal Drugs Ltd. sale or ready sale and forward purchase (CIT vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas (1992) 108 CTR (Guj) 22 : (1993( 203 ITR 304 (Guj) :. This decision was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ashokbhai B. Shah (1996) 131 CTR (guj) 234 : (1996) 218 ITR 331 (Guj). Hedging contracts contemplated by proviso to section 43(5): Proviso to section 43(5) lays down that for the purpose of section 43(5) contracts mentioned in cls. (a) to (c) of the proviso would not be deemed to be spec…