All Grow Finance and Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT

338 ITR 496High Court2012#11140 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 260

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)section 36(i)section 28(i)section 36(2)dividend distribution taxsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)(iii)disallowance u/s 14apenalty u/s 271(1)(c)share application moneyliable to taxsection 36(1)

Judgments citing All Grow Finance and Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DCIT, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant ITA No. 2136/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Beasent Rd., Worli, Mumbai-400018. PAN NO. AAACB 4674 J Respondent ITA No. 2269/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Fun Republic, 844/4 Shah Ind Estate Off New Link Road, Opp Laxmi Ind Estate, Andheri W, Mumbai-400053. PAN NO.…

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2136/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant Vs. M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Beasent Rd., Worli, Mumbai-400018. PAN NO. AAACB 4674 J Respondent ITA No. 2269/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Fun Republic, 844/4 Shah Ind Estate Off New Link Road, Opp Laxmi Ind Estate, Andheri W, Mumbai-400053. PAN N…

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2136/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant Vs. M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Beasent Rd., Worli, Mumbai-400018. PAN NO. AAACB 4674 J Respondent ITA No. 2269/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Fun Republic, 844/4 Shah Ind Estate Off New Link Road, Opp Laxmi Ind Estate, Andheri W, Mumbai-400053. PAN…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…oresaid. Since this was not a loan by a banker or money-lender, the debt to be a debt proper had to be one which if good would have swelled the taxable profits.’’ (7) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Grow Finance and Investment P Ltd vs CIT in 338 ITR 496 has held reproduced as hereunder: ‘’13. We are of the view that the only condition laid down in second part of sub-s. (2) of s. 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regar…

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)

…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 other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the C…

M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…ey lending business is written off during the relevant Assessment Year. The assessee has written off the loan as bad debt in the AY 2010-11 which is not disputed by the AO. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Grow Finance and Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT 338 ITR 496 (Del) has held that the amounts of debts were advanced by the assessee in the ordinary course of money lending. The only condition laid down in the second part of sub-section(2) of section 36 of the Act was that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions wer…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…ey lending business is written off during the relevant Assessment Year. The assessee has written off the loan as bad debt in the AY 2010-11 which is not disputed by the AO. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of All Grow Finance and Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT 338 ITR 496 (Del) has held that the amounts of debts were advanced by the assessee in the ordinary course of money lending. The only condition laid down in the second part of sub-section(2) of section 36 of the Act was that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions wer…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. KHYATI REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6537/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(2)

…are liable to be allowed when they become bad and are written off. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the following case laws :-  CIT Vs. Smt. Padma S. Bora (54 taxmann.com 319) (Bombay HC)  All Grow Finance and Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (338 ITR 496)(Delhi HC)  B.N. Khandelwal Vs. ITO (16 SOT 343)(ITAT) 8. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that assessee apart from being a builder and developer is also engaged in the business of financing/money lending. Learned CIT(A) has also given a finding to this effect. This is also supported by the fact that…

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

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

…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 other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the C…

ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AACHMAN VANIJYA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 112/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Girish Sharma, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…said loan was given in the ordinary course of assessee’s business and, the assessee is entitled to claim the same as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. In support of the contention, the assessee relied on following case laws:- a. All Grow Fin. & Inv. P.Ltd 338 ITR 496(Del) b. P.C.Dharmalinga Mudaliar 152 ITR 588(Mad.) c. Morgan Securities & Credit P.Ltd 162 Taxmann 124(Del) d. and other case laws, which available/mentioned in the order of the CIT-A. 8. The CIT-A considering the submissions as well as the various case laws available in his order held that bad debt of Rs.2,59,67,905/- is an allowable business e…