Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd 124 Taxman 429 and CIT v. Prafulla Kumar Mallick

73 ITR 119Reported decision1969#25715 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270A Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37 Section 5

Judgments citing Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd 124 Taxman 429 and CIT v. Prafulla Kumar Mallick

AXA PARENTERALS LIMITED,UP vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

…v. CIT, (1975) 100 ITR 143, 151-2 (Pat), CIT v. J.K. Cotton Spng. & Wvg. Mills Co., (1980) 123 ITR 911 (All). Thus penalty by way of damages for supply of foodgrains not conforming to contract quality was held deductible (CIT v. Profulla Kumar Mallick, (1969) 73 ITR 119 (Orl); Govind Choudhary & Sons v. CIT, (1971) 79 ITR 492 (Ori)]. The reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements (1) Sardar Prit Inder Singh v. CIT, (1986) 160 ITR 493 (Pat) (damages paid for delay supply of certain articles and also for supplying articles of inferior quality-hold deductible (2) CIT v. Indo Asian Switch-gea…

ACIT, C. R. BUILDING vs. HANSDEEP INDUSTRIES AND TRADING COMPANY LTD., FOURTH FLOOR, LINK HOUSE,

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3466/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Acit, Hansdeep Industries C.R. Building & Trading Company Ltd., New Delhi 4Th Floor, Link House, 3 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aabcj0776A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 5Section 57

…Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the notional income from the interest free loans is not taxable in the absence of a specific provision in the Income Tax Act. 5.6. The Orissa High Court in CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Mallik AIR 1969 Ori 187, ( 1969) 73 ITR 119 (Orissa) emphasized that income tax is imposed only on “profits he actually receives and not on the profits he might have, but has not received”. 5.7. In the case of Shivnandan Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 60 taxmann.com 347 (Delhi) assessee-company had given advance to one ‘S’ company out of its funds and no interest had been charged for thi…

DCIT,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALL INDIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 52/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 40

…e’s claim. Its only case was that the assessee’s expenditure in question is relatable to acquisition of office lease to be treated as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) quotes case law Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd 124 Taxman 429 and CIT vs. Prafulla Kumar Mallick (1969) 73 ITR 119 to inter alia conclude that the impugned expenditure is revenue in nature since it did not give any enduring benefits to the taxpayer, is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and that it is in the nature of compensation for premature termination of lease agreement to avoid any future commercial inconvenience. We find no subs…