Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT

54 ITR 167High Court1964#5305 most cited

What is Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A debt shown in a company's balance sheet constitutes an acknowledgement for the purposes of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, even if the balance sheet is not addressed to the creditors.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT · 54 ITR 167 · section 19 Limitation Act · acknowledgement of debt · balance sheet acknowledgement · sundry creditors · limitation period extension · Guj HC

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)section 41section 18sundry creditorssection 36(1)(va)rule 46aincome-tax officersection 28section 19section 69ccommissioner (appeals)section 133(6)

Judgments citing Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5782/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 282ASection 41(1)

…No. 7987/2004, decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present cas…

M/S. DEVISHA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5781/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 282ASection 41(1)

…No. 7987/2004, decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present cas…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…No. 7987/2004, decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present cas…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…No. 7987/2004, decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present cas…

DCIT CIRCLE 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITED DRILLING TOOLS LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…. No. 7987/2004, decided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act In Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present cas…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…at non- mentioning of precise provision of law makes the impugned addition bad in law, Apart from above the Appellant also relied on 4 Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. • Steel and Geneva Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 438(Del) • Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 54 ITR 167(Guj) Appellant held that AO passed the order without any application of mind and without providing any basis for making addition of Outstanding Creditors to total income of Appellant. 7.2 a) The issue of Remission or cessation of a trading liability i.e. applicability of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 41 of the Act has been discussed an…

RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 28, KOLKATA

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

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

…ITA No. 612/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 612/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh,………..….……... Appellant C/o. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN: AMAPS3456L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ....Respondent Circle-28, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700068 Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Adv…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELMOS AVIATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

…re appearing in the balance sheet is a strong acknowledgement of the debts payable by the assessee as has recently been held in the case of CIT vs Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation 292 ITR 310(Mad). It has also been held in the case of Ambica Mills Ltd vs CIT 54 ITR 167 (Guj) Page 5 of 17 ACIT vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd. that liability shown in the balance sheet is a clear case of acknowledging the liability and such liability cannot be treated to have ceased so as to attract section 41(1). That being so, where is the question of holding the said liabilities as ceased to exist, more so when assessee herself…

HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 161/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwary, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 28Section 32Section 41(1)

…pport of this contention reliance was placed on the following judgements  CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC)  Goodricke Group Ltd. vs. CIT 338 ITR 116 (Cal)  CIT vs. Chougule & Co. (P.) Ltd. 189 FTR 473 (Bom)  Ambica Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 54 ITR 167 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Silver Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. 254 ITR 728 (Guj.) 6. As regards the disallowance of ₹ 313,010/- incurred by the assessee towards Pandel decoration, it was submitted that event management expenses to the tune of Rs.1,04,70,223/- was claimed, which included the sum of ₹ 313,010/-payable to Amit Agencies on account of Pandel decoratio…

THE ITO., WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GAYATRI INTERMEDIATES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3074/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani & P.B. Parmar
Section 41Section 41(1)

…assessee debtor in writing back time-barred debts does not amount to cessation of liability, hence not chargeable under s. 41 (1)- CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 355 relied on. 3.6.7. Further in the case of Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it has been held as under:- Business income- Profits chargeable to tax under s. 10(2A) - Unpaid and unclaimed wages due to and payable by the company to its workers - Amount acknowledged as liability in the balance sheet every year - Does not became time barred - cannot be added to income as profits chargeable to tax. F38. In view of the a…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4673/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Vs M/s HAL Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3144B ITA No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s HAL Offshore Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o M/s RRA Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3144B Assessee by : Sh. Somil Agarwal, CA Revenue by :…

M/S. HAL OFFSHORE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Vs M/s HAL Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3144B ITA No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s HAL Offshore Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o M/s RRA Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH3144B Assessee by : Sh. Somil Agarwal, CA Revenue by :…

SH. LOK NATH NARANG, PROP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

ITA 6708/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblelok Nath Narang, Prop. Vs Ito C/O. M/S. Rra Tax India, Ward-2(1) D-28, South Extension, Part-I Gurgaon New Delhi Pan : Adrpn8014H

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 41(1)Section 68

…ding. The very fact that these liabilities are appearing in the balance sheet is strong acknowledgement of the dates payable by the assessee as held in the case of CIT vs. Tamil Nadu warehousing Corporation, 292 ITR 310 (Mad.). In case of Ambica Mills vs. CIT 54 ITR 167 (Guj.) it is held that liability shown in the balance sheet is a clear case of acknowledging the liability of such liability cannot be treated to have ceased so as to attract Section 41(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that being so, where is the question of holding the said liabilities as ceased to exist, more so when assessee herself…

FLO DYNE CONTROLS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 983/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Flo Dyne Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(1) C/O. Jayesh Sangharjka & Co Llp Charted {Now Known As Income Tax Accountants Officer 15(1)(2)} Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 014

For Appellant: Shri Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 40Section 41(1)

…hown as outstanding. These liabilities were appearing in the assessee's balance-sheet, indication acknowledgment of the debts payable by the assessee, as has been held in "CIT v. Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corpn." 292 ITR 310 (Mad), and "Ambika Mills Ltd. v. CIT" 54 ITR 167 (Guj.). As such, these liabilities could not have been treated to have ceased and so, invocation of the provisions of Section 41 (1) was not at all called for. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sugauli Sugar Works v. CIT" 236 ITR 518 (SC), the cessation of the liability can come about only by a bilateral act and not unilateral act…

RITEPLAZA TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5558/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…under consideration. In this case, the assessee has raised loan in the year 2007. Therefore, there is no reason for the AO to invoke the provisions of section 68 to make addition. In this regard, the Ld.AR relied on the following decisions:- 1.Ambica Mills 54 ITR 167 (Guj) 2. Chase Bright Steel Ltd 177 ITR 128 (Guj) 7 ITA 5558/Mum/2017 3. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518 (SC) 4. Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P) Ltd 114 ITR 852 (Kar) 5. Cipla Investments Ltd 33 SOT 317 (OM) 6. Airline Allied Services Ltd 2017) 167 ITD 717 (Del-Trib) 7. Bombay Gas Co Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 13 (Mum) 8. Samrat Rice Mills (P…

M/S A.S. SYNDICATE WAREHOUSING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O, WD -11(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2095/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

….- CIT [338 ITR 116 (Cal.)]; (iii) CIT –vs.- Chougule & Co. (P) Limited [189 ITR 473 (Bom.)]; (iv) Steel and General Mills Co. Limited –vs.-CIT[96 ITR 438 (Del]; (v) CIT –vs.- Ancherry Pauoo Kakku [1986] 160 ITR 88 (Ker.); (vi) Ambica Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [54 ITR 167 (Guj.)]; (vii) CIT –vs.- Silver Cotton Mills Co. Limited [254 ITR 728 (Guj.). The ld. A.R. also filed additional evidence together with the prayer for receipt of additional evidence showing the evidence for writing back of this liability to income in assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 in part. He fairly submitted that these papers were not submi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…cided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambika Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad v. CIT Gujarat (1964) 54 ITR 167, it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present case, the…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…cided on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambika Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad v. CIT Gujarat (1964) 54 ITR 167, it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present case, the…

ACIT CIR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RUKMINI IYER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6242/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 25(3) Ms. Rukmini Iyer, R.No.308, C-11, 1002, Doll Apartment Bhatt बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex Lane, Vs. Bandra (E) Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaapi7916F Revenue By Shri Chandra Vijay (Dr) Respondent By Shri Haresh P. Shah (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4O

…ding. These liabilities were appearing in the assessee's balance- sheet, indicating acknowledgment of the debts payable by the asses see, as has been held in CIT v. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation [2007] 292 ITR 310 (Mad) and Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj). As such, these liabilities could not have been treated to have ceased and so, invocation of the provisions of section 41(1) was not at all called for. Moreover, as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518, the cessation of the liability can come about only by a bilateral act and not unilater…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA/774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…on 30/4/2007) and it was held that the acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ambika Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad v. CIT Gujarat (1964) 54 ITR 167, it was further held that a debt shown in a balance sheet of a company amounts to an acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and in order to be so, the balance sheet in which such acknowledgement is made need not be addressed to the creditors. In light of these authorities, it must be held that in the present ca…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT (54 ITR 167) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax