AVM Ltd. v. CIT

146 ITR 355High Court1984#5193 most cited

What is AVM Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A deposit received in connection with a business is not necessarily a trading receipt if it cannot be dealt with by the assessee as part of its trade.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

AVM Ltd v CIT · 146 ITR 355 · security deposits · exhibitors · cinematograph films · trading receipts · business connection

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 142(2A)Section 250Section 28(iv)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 256(2)waiver of loansection 256section 73substance over formspeculation losssection 28(iv)resulting companysection 43(5)speculative transactiondemergersection 142(2a)

Judgments citing AVM Ltd. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Motor & General Finance Lt

ITA/331/2007HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

…ali Swgar Warks (P) I-td, | 236 ITR 5181 related to statutory liabilities. . Further, in the following cases, the amounts transferred to the profit and loss account were held to be chargeable receipts of the assessee from trade:- (a) (b) (c) (d) CIT Vs, AVM , 146 ITR 355. Punjab Steel Scrap Merchants Ass. Vs. ClT, 43 ITR 164. CIT Vs. Batlibol, 149 ITR 664. Punjab Distilling lndustries Vs. ClT, 35 ITR 519. L4. Ms. Chopra, thus concluded her arguments by submitting that since the amount collected by the assessee remained unclaimed, ITA 458 of L9B4 & other connected matters Page 11 of 24 -- and was never given bac…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. The Motor & General Finance Lt

ITA/130/2007HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

…s, Sugalli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. [ 236 ITR 518] related to statutory liabilities. Further, in the following cases, the amounts transferred, to the profit and loss account were held to be chargeable receipts of the assessee from trade:- ' (a) CIT Vs. AVM, 146 ITR 355. Punjab Steel Scrap Merchants Ass. Vs. CIT, 43 ITR 164. CITVs. Batlibol, 149 ITR 664. Punjab Distilling Industries Vs. CIT, 35 ITR 519. 14. Ms. Chopra, thus concluded her arguments by submitting that' since the amount collected by the assessee remained unclaimed, TA 458 of 1984 & other connected matters Page 17 of 24' and was never give…