Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others v. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer

230 ITR 522High Court1998#5087 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Judgments citing Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others v. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…o examine this aspect while imposing the penalty. They have merely relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court (supra). The reliance on this judgment appears to us to be misplaced. In Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors vs K.L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522, a learned Single Judge of this court pointed out that the distinction between a loan and a deposit is that in the case of the former it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek out the creditor and to repay the money according to the agreement while in the case of a deposit it is generally the duty of the depositor to go to the banker or to…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

…o examine this aspect while imposing the penalty. They have merely relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court (supra). The reliance on this judgment appears to us to be misplaced. In Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors vs K.L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522, a learned Single Judge of this court pointed out that the distinction between a loan and a deposit is that in the case of the former it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek out the creditor and to repay the money according to the agreement while in the case of a deposit it is generally the duty of the depositor to go to the banker or to…

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…s however not associated with a deposit. A recipient of deposit does not enjoy the right of disposal. A ‘deposit’ is received with an obligation to repay the same. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Baidyanath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and Others v ITO 230 ITR 522 can be referred to in this connection. The High Court observed: 19 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. “"Now the only question which remains to be determined is whether the repayment was towards 'deposit' or the same was towards 'loan'. In order to determine this question it will be necessary to consider whether the meaning of the term 'depos…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 357/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…C)(vi) of the Act then, withdrawal of the approval is patently illegal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Alarippu 244 ITR 358 as well as Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer 230 ITR 522 and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has defined expression investment, deposit and loan and held that these words have different meanings. The advance given resulting no income or return cannot be termed as investment or loan it cannot be said to be deposited as it is not made for safe keeping or earning any interest income. Thus, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1362/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…C)(vi) of the Act then, withdrawal of the approval is patently illegal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Alarippu 244 ITR 358 as well as Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer 230 ITR 522 and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has defined expression investment, deposit and loan and held that these words have different meanings. The advance given resulting no income or return cannot be termed as investment or loan it cannot be said to be deposited as it is not made for safe keeping or earning any interest income. Thus, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1361/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…C)(vi) of the Act then, withdrawal of the approval is patently illegal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Alarippu 244 ITR 358 as well as Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer 230 ITR 522 and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has defined expression investment, deposit and loan and held that these words have different meanings. The advance given resulting no income or return cannot be termed as investment or loan it cannot be said to be deposited as it is not made for safe keeping or earning any interest income. Thus, the…

EXOTICA HOUSING & INFRSTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 8(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 5188/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.5188/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2013-2014 M/s. Exotica Housing & The Income Tax Officer, Infrastructure Company Ward – 8 (4), [vs. Pvt. Ltd., 228, Basement, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi - 092 New Delhi. PAN AABCE6019K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed…

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as interpreted the same. The expression ‘loan’ was under consideration before the various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 14.3.6 In the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer in 230 ITR 522, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which is a Jurisdictional High Court, held that there is a distinction between the loan and deposit. In the case of loan, it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek 69 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. out the creditor and to repay the money…

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as interpreted the same. The expression ‘loan’ was under consideration before the various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 14.3.6 In the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer in 230 ITR 522, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which is a Jurisdictional High Court, held that there is a distinction between the loan and deposit. In the case of loan, it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek 69 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. out the creditor and to repay the money…

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as interpreted the same. The expression ‘loan’ was under consideration before the various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 14.3.6 In the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer in 230 ITR 522, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which is a Jurisdictional High Court, held that there is a distinction between the loan and deposit. In the case of loan, it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek 69 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. out the creditor and to repay the money…

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…as interpreted the same. The expression ‘loan’ was under consideration before the various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 14.3.6 In the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Others vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer in 230 ITR 522, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which is a Jurisdictional High Court, held that there is a distinction between the loan and deposit. In the case of loan, it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek 69 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. out the creditor and to repay the money…

BOOMI BOTTLING GAS,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.Ponraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

…ble only to ‘deposits’. The same signify a different concept from ‘loan’, as explained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in A.M.Shamsudeen v. Union of India [2000] 244 ITR 266 (Mad), concurring with Baidyanath Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1998] 230 ITR 522 (Del). In the present case, the amounts are deposited and withdrawn at will, i.e., as and when required. Deposit is specifically defined in s. 269T as a deposit of money which is repayable after notice or repayable after period. The demand deposit in the present case may violate the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, but that does not concern…

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1040/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Khincha, C.A
Section 11Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)(a)Section 28

…ed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with an identical issue in case of DIT Vs. Acne Education Society (supra) in para 13 held as under : “ 13. In Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. K.L. Anand, ITO (1998) 146 CTR (Del) 421 : (1998) 230 ITR 522 (Del) a learned Single Judge of this Court pointed out that the distinction between "loan" and "deposit" is that in the case of the former it is ordinarily the duty of the debtor to seek out the creditor and to repay the money according to the agreement, while in the case of the 11 latter it is generally the duty of the depositor to go to the ban…

NUMERO UNO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1713/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07
Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…spect of allotment of shares was not examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment in the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd and Ors. Vs. K. L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522, and distinguished the loan from the deposits. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: “8. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the AO has relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court (supra) and referred the issue of levying penalty to the Additional CIT. He did not examine whether the share application…

CIT vs. SARLA FABRICS PVT LTD

ITA - 788 / 2011HC Delhi20 Jul 2012
Section 269SSection 271Section 80H

…ITA-788/2011 Page 1 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON: 20.07.2012 + ITA 788/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate. versus SARLA FABRICS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.P. Rustogi with Mr. Deepak Malik and Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieve…

CIT vs. NUMERO UNO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA/857/2011HC Delhi05 Mar 2012

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

Section 271D

…e had examined the decision of Jharkhand High Court in M/s Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 275 ITR 399 and reference was made to the decisions in Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors vs K.L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522 and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs ACME Educational Society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Del). Decision of Madras High Court in ITA 857/2011 Page 4 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 417 was also considered and examined. 8. Thus, the first and the foremost aspect, which has to be consid…

CIT vs. NUMERO UNO FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD

ITA - 857 / 2011HC Delhi05 Mar 2012
Section 271D

…e had examined the decision of Jharkhand High Court in M/s Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 275 ITR 399 and reference was made to the decisions in Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors vs K.L. Anand (1998) 230 ITR 522 and Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs ACME Educational Society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Del). Decision of Madras High Court in 2012:DHC:1558-DB ITA 857/2011 Page 4 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners (P) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 417 was also considered and examined. 8. Thus, the first and the foremost aspect, which…

CIT vs. JETLIFE INDIA LTD

ITA/1276/2011HC Delhi13 Dec 2011

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

Section 2Section 2(12)Section 260ASection 269TSection 271E

…x (Appeals) and the tribunal that debentures or bonds were not covered by the term “deposit” and was a loan. 9. Section 269T of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. K.L. Anand, ITO [1998] 230 ITR 522 (Delhi) and it was held that the said provision before its amendment with effect from 1st June, 2002 would apply only in cases of deposits and not in cases of loans. Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Shamsudden Vs. Union of India [2000] 244 ITR 266 (Mad.) and Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 611 have take…

CIT vs. JETLIFE INDIA LTD

ITA - 1277 / 2011HC Delhi13 Dec 2011
Section 2Section 2(12)Section 260ASection 269TSection 271E

…Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal that debentures or bonds were not covered by the term "deposit" and was a loan. Section 269T of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Baidya Nat/i Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. K.L. An and, ITO [1998] 230 ITR 522 (Delhi) and it was held that the said provision before its amendment with effect from 1 St June, 2002 would apply only in cases of deposits and not in cases of loans. Madras High Court in the case of A.M. S/,amsudden Vs. Union of India [2000] 244 ITR 266. (Mad.) and Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 611 have…

CIT vs. JETLIFE INDIA LTD

ITA - 1276 / 2011HC Delhi13 Dec 2011
Section 2Section 2(12)Section 260ASection 269TSection 271E

…x (Appeals) and the tribunal that debentures or bonds were not covered by the term “deposit” and was a loan. 9. Section 269T of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. K.L. Anand, ITO [1998] 230 ITR 522 (Delhi) and it was held that the said provision before its amendment with effect from 1st June, 2002 would apply only in cases of deposits and not in cases of loans. Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Shamsudden Vs. Union of India [2000] 244 ITR 266 (Mad.) and Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Secure Meters Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 611 have take…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2