A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT

48 ITR 67Supreme Court of India1963#4415 most cited

What is A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For a bad debt to be allowable as a deduction, it must be a debt that, if good, would have increased the taxable profits. An expenditure for running a school for employees' children in a remote area can be considered an allowable expenditure for the welfare of employees.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 48 ITR 67 · bad debt deduction · allowable expenditure · welfare of employees · business expediency · section 10(2)(xi) · section 37(1)

Also reported as

92 Taxmann 132

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 28Section 37(1)Section 5(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)section 36(2)business connectionbusiness expediencysection 36(1)(vii)amalgamationsection 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencysection 36section 28section 36(1)section 144c

Judgments citing A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Pranava Electronics Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

….DHARMALINGA MUDALIAR VS. CIT', 152 ITR 588, 'NARAIN SWADESHI WEAVING MILLS VS. CEPT', 26 ITR 765, 'INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS', 55 ITR 736, 'BADRIDAS DAGA VS. CIT', 34 ITR 10, 'A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. VS. CIT', 48 ITR 67, 'ALL GROW FINANCE AND INVESTMENT P LTD. VS. CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. CIT', 348 ITR 109, 'CIT VS. VIVEK ENGINEERING & CASTING LTD.', 383 ITR 480, 'CIT VS. SMT.PADMA S. BORA', (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 319, 'CIT VS. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO LTD', 138 ITR 763. 8 5. On the ot…

Kokuyo Camlin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhkokuyo Camlin Limited Acit -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Midc, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacc1647E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Kokuyo Camlin Limited ACIT -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, MIDC, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACC1647E Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR) Date of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is dire…

Cosmos Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…much less close proximity to the business so as to regard the same to be either integral or essential part of carrying on the business or incidental to the business of the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas & Company Ltd. vs. CIT 48 ITR 67 held that when the assessee is neither a banker nor a money lender, the advance made by assessee to a private company to purchase a share could not be said to be incidental to the trading activity of the assessee. 5.6 In view thereof, for the reasons aforesaid, the loss is held to be long term capital loss and as such, grounds raised by the appella…

Prl Comm of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad vs. M/S Nuzividu Swathi Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Ramesh G Porwal, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1727/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1727/PUN/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mr. Ramesh G. Porwal, ………. अपीलाथ" / F-213, Parmar Trade Centre Appellant Near Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune – 411 001. PAN : ACMPP8685N. बनाम v/s Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, ………. ""यथ" / Range – 5, Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.G. Nahar. Revenue by : Shri Dr. Vivek Aggarwal. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement:…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…g not allowed or allowed, where otherwise allowable or, as the case may be, not deductible, i.e., for that reason. The law in the matter is well settled and the case law legion, and toward which we may cite some decisions: A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 67 (SC) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65 (SC) Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 927 (SC) 12 ITA Nos. 1858 & 1980/Mds/2011 (AY 2004-05) Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Hasimara Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 842 (SC) None of the decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, clarifying the law in the matter, have…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Escotrac Finance

ITA/215/2005HC Delhi19 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…ITA 215/2005 Page 1 of 9 $~R-46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 215/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate. versus ESCOTRAC FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Simran Mehta & Ms. Swati R.K., Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R % 19.07.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) a…