Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)

79 ITR 514Supreme Court of India1971#4888 most cited

What is Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) authority for?

Penalties paid for violation of law are not allowable as a deduction. Such penalties are opposed to public policy.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Indian Aluminium Co Ltd vs. CIT · penalty not allowable as deduction · violation of law · opposed to public policy

Judgments citing Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 893/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 893/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ba Continuum India Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(2), [Pan No. Aaccc2310C] Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Niahant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…earned AR, however, at the outset, narrating the facts, submitted that in the impugned order under section 263 of the Act, learned PCIT, while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Alluminium Company Ltd., Vs. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 514 (Supreme Court), observed that “the assessee did not have any contractual obligation to its employees to pay the pay roll taxes without deducting from their salaries. During the course of discussion with the Authorised Representatives, it was categorically stated by them that there was no contract between the assessee and its employees to this eff…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 246/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…llowing case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3. Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Samaj Parivartana Sam…

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…llowing case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3. Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Samaj Parivartana Sam…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1952/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…llowing case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 26 of 37 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3.Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certai…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1951/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…llowing case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 26 of 37 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3.Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certai…

SRI. K R KAVIRAJ,HOSAPETE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1950/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…llowing case laws to buttress his view that the penalty is not allowable as deduction:- (a) Maddi Venkataramana& Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1998)(229 ITR 534)(SC) (b) Haji Azis& Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (c) Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) ITA Nos.1950 to 1952/Bang/2018 Sri K.R. Kaviraj, Hosapete Page 26 of 37 8.12.2. Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3.Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certai…

M/S MUNEER ENTERPRISES ,HOSPET vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3411/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath K., D.R

…law is opposed to public policy and not allowable as deduction. The AO also took support of following decisions, wherein identical view has been expressed:- (a) Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros vs. CIT (1961)(41 ITR 350)(SC) (b) Indian Aluminium Co Ltd vs. CIT (79 ITR 514)(SC) (c) Millennia Developers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2010)(188 taxmann 388)(Kar) (d) Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd vs. CIT (226 Taxmann364)(P & H) Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of Rs.12, 07,51,307/-. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 5.1 The Ld A.R submitted that identical payment made in the case of Veerabhadhrappa Sangappa & Co. (supra) has be…

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

…Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)]. A payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. In the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514 it was held by the Apex Court that - A payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business. It is not out of place to emphasise once again the judgement in the case of Maddi Ve…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 CTR 350 (SC)J. A payment made under a statutory obligation, because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 4.3.h. Further, probable expenditure for implementation of R & R Plan Rs.l,48,97,000/- claimed by the assessee firm is a provisional & probable one. Provisions are contingent liabilities which do not constitute expenditure and cannot be the subject matter of deduction even under the mercantile system of accounting. Further, it is well establishe…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 CTR 350 (SC)J. A payment made under a statutory obligation, because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 4.3.h. Further, probable expenditure for implementation of R & R Plan Rs.l,48,97,000/- claimed by the assessee firm is a provisional & probable one. Provisions are contingent liabilities which do not constitute expenditure and cannot be the subject matter of deduction even under the mercantile system of accounting. Further, it is well establishe…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHAIAH AND BROTHERS ,HOSPET vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 CTR 350 (SC)J. A payment made under a statutory obligation, because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 4.3.h. Further, probable expenditure for implementation of R & R Plan Rs.l,48,97,000/- claimed by the assessee firm is a provisional & probable one. Provisions are contingent liabilities which do not constitute expenditure and cannot be the subject matter of deduction even under the mercantile system of accounting. Further, it is well establishe…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITR 350 (SC)]. A payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 30 of 70 expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 45. He relied on the judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 1TR 514 it was held by the Apex Court that - a payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business. He emphasized once again the judgement in the case of…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ITR 350 (SC)]. A payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 30 of 70 expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 45. He relied on the judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (SC) 79 1TR 514 it was held by the Apex Court that - a payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee's business. He emphasized once again the judgement in the case of…

ASHWATHNARAYANA SINGH AND CO ,BELLRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result appeal is filed by assessee for year under consideration stands allowed

ITA 522/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Laxminiwas Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 37

…t the amount contributed towards SPV is hit by Explanation to section 37 (1) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). 4.1 On the second issue Ld.CIT(A) , upheld he addition by LD.AO. Ld.AIT(A) held that, no where in the Income Tax Act, particularly such nature of expenditure is allowable under section 37. The Ld.CIT(A) taking recourse under Explanation 1 to Page 6 of 31 Section 37, upheld the d…

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…ziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. Vs. CIT (1961) 41 CTR 350 (SC)J. A payment made under a statutory obligation, because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business [Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 79 ITR 514]. 4.3.h. Further, probable expenditure for implementation of R & R Plan Rs.l,48,97,000/- claimed by the assessee firm is a provisional & probable one. Provisions are contingent liabilities which do not constitute expenditure and cannot be the subject matter of deduction even under the mercantile system of accounting. Further, it is well establishe…

M/S. RAMGAD MINERALS & MINING LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1271/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…e amount contributed towards SPV is hit by Explanation 1 to section 37 (1) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). ITA No. 212 & 589/Bang/2020 Asst.Yrs:2013-14 &2014-15 Page 6 of 33 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us now for both years under consideration. 7. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that only two kinds of disallowance have been made by Ld.AO…

M/S. RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LIMITED,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1270/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…e amount contributed towards SPV is hit by Explanation 1 to section 37 (1) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) followed decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT, 41 ITR 350 (SC), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 514 (SC) and Maddi Venkatraman & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 534 (SC). ITA No. 212 & 589/Bang/2020 Asst.Yrs:2013-14 &2014-15 Page 6 of 33 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us now for both years under consideration. 7. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that only two kinds of disallowance have been made by Ld.AO…

M/S.VIGHNAHARTA BUILDERS & PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT,RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6499/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Vighnaharta Builders Acit Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaacv3498G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Vighnaharta Builders ACIT Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan, & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AAACV3498G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Priyanka Jain, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR Date of Hearing : 12/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 18/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment…

ORANATE MULTI MODAL CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the additional/preliminary ground of appeal raised

ITA 2050/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhorient Multimodal Carriers Pvt. Ito-2(2)(4), Ltd., Orient House, 4Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi Merzban Path, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaaco0797R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Heena Sheth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ad debts. In support thereof reliance is also placed on the decision of the following case laws by the Audit: i) Grindwell Norton Ltd. v/s DCIT 199 Taxman 197, 85 ITJ 389 ii) CIT Vis S R Subramanya Pillai 181TR 85 (Mad.) iii) Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 79 ITR 514,518 (SC) 4. The Assessing Officer after supplying the reasons recorded proceeded for reassessment. The assessee was asked to file the details of bad-debt and to furnish the explanation about its allowability. The assessee filed its detailed reply dated 27.11.2013. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer holding that the said…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) (79 ITR 514) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax