How many judgments cite Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT (248 ITR 670), spanning 2011 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 2(47), Section 28(iiid), Section 28(iiie), Section 35D.

Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT

248 ITR 670High Court2001#10407 most cited

What is Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT authority for?

Interest income from inter-corporate deposits is assessed as business income. Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act allows for deductions related to bad debts even if the company is not primarily in the money lending business, provided certain conditions are met.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT · 248 ITR 670 · Section 36(2) · inter-corporate deposit · business income · money lending business · bad debt deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 2(47)Section 28(iiid)Section 28(iiie)Section 35D Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Judgments citing Bilasrai Juharmal v. CIT

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…when the company is not in the money lending business. P a g e | 42 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) (a) Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 724 (Calcutta High Court) (b) Crescent Films (P.) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 670 (Madras High Court) If company is in the business of money lending then second condition u/s 36(2)(i) is also satisfied. (a) Sicom Limited (ITA No. 8040 and 8055/M/2010 dated 2014) (Mumbai Tribunal) 15 January (b) Smt. Padma S Bora in (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 319 (Bombay High Court) (c) Vivek Engineering & Casting Ltd [2016] 383 ITR 480 (Calcutta) 8…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1443/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…Co., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Products Ltd., Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 833 [Cal], e. CIT Vs. Sri. Vinayaga Pictures, 161 ITR 65 [Mad], f CIT Vs. K.MMody, 141 ITR 903 [Born], g. Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. CIT, 141 ITR 915 [Born], h. CIT Vs. Cresent Films (P) Ltd., 248 ITR 670 [Mad], i. CIT Vs. Essen (F) Ltd., 49 ITR 109 [Mad]" 16. The Id. CIT(A), after considering the above submissions had allowed the relief. The Id. CIT(DR) has not placed any material on record controverting the findings of CIT(A) and since the order of CIT(A) is inconsonance with well settled position of law on the issue, we do not find any reason t…

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…ess. In support of these contentions, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. [2003]259 ITR 114 (Raj.); ii) P. Satyanarayana v/s CIT, [1979] 116 ITR 803 (A.P); and iii) CIT v Crescent Films P. Ltd., [1979] 248 ITR 670 (Mad.). 48. In view of the above, the learned A.R. submitted that claim of business loss of ` 1,25,00,000, on account of write–off of irrecoverable deposit shall be allowed. 27 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 49. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the observations of the authorities below. 50. Considered the rival…

Southern Group Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 150/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Southern Group Industries Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., New No.72, Old No.19, Corporate Ward-6(3), Room No.706, 7Th Floor, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road, New Block, 121, Egmore, Chennai-6000 M.G.Road, Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aaecs0081Q] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Gurubashyam, JCITFor Respondent: 28.11.2019

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…Counsel for assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 397(SC) and also decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Crescent Films Private Limited reported in (2001) 248 ITR 670(Mad.) to contend that these bad debts written off by assessee in its books of accounts be allowed as deduction. On being asked by the Bench, Ld.Counsel for assessee fairly submitted that no evidence is placed before authorities including tribunal to substantiate that these loans and advances were given in connection with business of selling b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the issues in the Cross Objections raised have become infructuous and dismissed as such

ITA 1442/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40A(3)

…., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Products Ltd., Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 833 [Cal], e. CIT Vs. Sri. Vinayaga Pictures, 161 ITR 65 [Mad], f. CIT Vs. K.M.Mody, 141 ITR 903 [Born], g. Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. CIT, 141 ITR 915 [Born], h. CIT Vs. Cresent Films (P) Ltd., 248 ITR 670 [Mad], i. CIT Vs. Essen (P) Ltd., 49 ITR 109 [Mad]” 16. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the above submissions had allowed the relief. The ld. CIT(DR) has not placed any material on record controverting the findings of CIT(A) and since the order of CIT(A) is inconsonance with well settled position of law on the issue, we do not find any reason…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Spero Foundations Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1572/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 07.06.2017

Section 143(3)Section 28

…e was confirmed in the absence of any improvement being effected in its’ case by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) would, placing reliance on CIT v. Crescent Films (P.) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 670 (Mad), submit that the assessee had purchased from the lendee concerns in the past as well. The companies had been declared defunct, and not gone into dissolution. The genuineness of the claim of loss could not be doubted merely because the said date was close to the date of the advance/s. The ld. Departmental Representative 3 ITA Nos.1189 & 1…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 43B

…s submitted that the Assessee is not required to be in the money lending business to give advances in the normal course of business. Attention was invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Crescent Films (P) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 670 (Mad) wherein it was held that in any business, credit is an indispensable part and advances of the temporary nature with or without interest are a common incident of business. It is not necessary that every business should register itself under the Money Lenders Act and make a claim in relation to any advance made by it only in the capacity of a…

Mega Bollywood P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Mukwanal, D.R

Section 143(3)

…ome thereform was offered for tax. In defence to his arguments the ld counsel relied on a number of decisions namely P. Satyanarayana V Commissioer of Income Tax 116 ITR 803(AP), CIT V Sethu Film Distributors 212ITR 620(Mad) , CIT V Crescent Films Pvt Ltd 248 ITR 670 (Mad), Badridas Daga V CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) and T.J. Lalwani V CIT(A) 78 ITR 176(Bom).Lastly the ld counsel summarising his arguments submitted that the ld CIT(A) erred in treating the transaction of purchase as prior period expenses which was a genuine purchase and also treating the agreement of finance and sharing of revenue to secure the rep…

M/S Pragati Constructions Co vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITR-5/1996HC Delhi31 May 2011

For Appellant: Mr R. M. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rashmi Chopra & Mr Chandramani Bhardwaj, Advocates

Section 256(1)

…ons has cited the following judgments: S.A. Builders Ltd. vs CIT (Appeals) & Anr. (2007) 288 ITR 1; M/s Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs CIT (1977) 4 SCC 529; CIT, Madras vs S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1973) 3 SCC 339 and CIT vs Crescent Films (P) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 670. 8. Ms Rashmi Chopra who appeared for the revenue rebutted the contention of the counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel largely relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. It was Ms Chopra‟s submission that the amount in issue had been paid as an advance which was not relatable to the business of the assessee. She furth…