Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT

96 ITR 568High Court1974#7258 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(2)(xi) of Indian I. T. Act 1922Section 10(2)(xv) of Indian I. T. Act 1922Section 36(2)Section 37

Judgments citing Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT

ROOP KISHORE MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9540/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 36(2)

…revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court held that there was no element of a capital investment in making the advances and the loss incurred by the assessee was, therefore, a loss on the revenue side and was deductible. 17. In Chenab Forest Co. vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) a forest contractor advanced money to sub-contractor for cutting and moving the trees. But the forest contract was not renewed. Accordingly, portion of the advances became irrecoverable. It was clear that to carry on the business, it was essential that advances should be made. Without these advances, the forest lessee might not be able to ca…

HBA STUDIO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4015/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan – Aabch8171R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 37(1)

…1 ITA No. 4015/Del./2018 M/s. HBA Studio Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. HBA Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN – AABCH8171R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Tapas Misra, Adv. Revenue by Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order u/s 2…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN vs. APPOLLO TYRES LTD.

ITA/172/2013HC Kerala29 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…capital assets is liable to be disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) 4 (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) I.T.A. No.172/2013 -6- 5.1 The present question deals with the view taken by the Tribunal that the claim of assessee though is not permissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, still the same is admissible under Section 37 of the Act. The contention of Revenue is that the spe…

SHEETAL G DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.1360/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Section 250

…Assessment Year: 2009-10 purposes of the business”. S. 37 (1) is a residuary section extending the allowance to items of business expenditure and not of business losses which are deductible on the ordinary principles of commercial accounting (Chenab Forest Co 96 ITR 568 (J&K) & Mysore Sugar Co 46 ITR 649 (SC) followed) (ii) Merely because the claim was made under one provision of the Act and not under another provision does not debar the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 37(1) even if it was not raised before the lower authorities.” 14. Applying the propositions of law laid down in this case laws to the facts…

HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PORBANDAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2,, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…49 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of trees, cutting them into sizeable logs, etc. In that case, the assessee had to engage various sub-contractors, who were to be given advances before coming to the works. The advances as also the cost of rations supplied to them…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, JAMNAGAR vs. M/S HIRAVATI MARINE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, PORBANDAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R
Section 37

…49 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of trees, cutting them into sizeable logs, etc. In that case, the assessee had to engage various sub-contractors, who were to be given advances before coming to the works. The advances as also the cost of rations supplied to them…

SITI CABLE NETWORK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6961/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Siti Cable Network Ltd. Acit, Range -11(1) (Partly Mrged With Dish Tv India Ltd.) Room No. 439, 4Th Floor 135,Continental Building Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Annie Besant Road Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai 400018 Pan – Aaaca5478M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kumar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Dated 15.09.2014 & It Relates To A.Y. 2005-05. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Cable Network Services (Called Multi System Operator) To Cable Operators, Subscribers, Franchisee & Affiliates, Etc. The Original Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee On 31.10.2004 Showing Loss Of `83,73,94,340/-. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide Order Dated 22.12.2006 Assessing The Total Income At `249,53,53,900/- By Adding Subscription Income Of `356,32,58,864/- & Disallowing Write Off Of Loan & Advances Of `5,09,64,244/- & Write Of Off Inventories Of Band Width Charges Of `2,23,59,985/-. The Learned Cit(A), Vide Order Dated 23.03.2007 & His Order Under Section 154 Dated 15.06.2007 Deleted The Addition Of Subscription Income & Inventories

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 9(1)(vi)

…tantial question of law involved in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.” In the order in ITA No. 129/Mum/2014 the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal relied upon the following judgements wherein it was held us under: - “b. Chenab Forest Co. V CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) Assessee, a forest lessee advanced money to sub-contractors appointed to exploit forest - Advances were adjusted against ultimate payment due to them - Due to non-extension of lease in favour of assessee some of advances could not be recovered from such contractors which were originally claimed as bad debts but was rejected as not fulfilling…

SURI ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4)., HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1387/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Suri Engineers Pvt. Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(4), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aaccs8544A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik

For Appellant: Shri V. JagadisanFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)

…owing case law: a. Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC). b. Ramchander Shivnarayan 111 ITR 263 (SC). 7 M/s Suri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. c. Dr. T.A Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547. d. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd., 55 ITR 707 (SC). e. Chenab Forest Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 (J &K). f. CIT Vs Inden Biselers 181 ITR 69 (Madras). g. Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs ACIT 65 SOT 15. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the asset being a capital asset, the capital loss cannot be allowed from the profits of the business as rightly held by the A.O. 7. Having regard to the…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses. Similar views were also expressed by the High Court of J&K in the case of Chenab Forest Co v. CIT [1974](96 ITR 568)(J&K). In the instant case the assessee's property advance to the landlords is a common practice in the case of real estate business. The advances to land owners is a routine and common phenomenon in the cases of real estate business and accordingly becomes incidental to the carrying of the business. Such business advances, when deduction, as 'bad…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses. Similar views were also expressed by the High Court of J&K in the case of Chenab Forest Co v. CIT [1974](96 ITR 568)(J&K). In the instant case the assessee's property advance to the landlords is a common practice in the case of real estate business. The advances to land owners is a routine and common phenomenon in the cases of real estate business and accordingly becomes incidental to the carrying of the business. Such business advances, when deduction, as 'bad…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

…In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses. Similar views were also expressed by the High Court of J&K in the case of Chenab Forest Co v. CIT [1974](96 ITR 568)(J&K). In the instant case the assessee's property advance to the landlords is a common practice in the case of real estate business. The advances to land owners is a routine and common phenomenon in the cases of real estate business and accordingly becomes incidental to the carrying of the business. Such business advances, when deduction, as 'bad…

ACIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SUSHRUT SURGICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6859/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6859/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-8(3) M/s. Sushrut Surgicals P.Ltd. Room No.217, Aayakar Bhavan C/o., GPS & Associates (C.A.) M.K. Marg Vs. A-1, Sindhi Niwas, Sitladevi Temple Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 016. PAN:AAACS 0…

KHYATI REALTORS P.LD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 129/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Narsimhacharya
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…-Amount is advanced for the purpose of the assessee's business- When such advances were lost, the loss would be a business loss and not a capital loss-Mere fact that difference-Loss was therefore allowable as a business loss. b. Chenab Forest Co. V CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J. & K.) Assessee, a forest lessee advanced money to sub-contractors appointed to exploit forest - Advances were adjusted against ultimate payment due to them - Due to non-extension of lease in favour of assessee some of advances could not be recovered from such contractors which were originally claimed as bad debts but was rejected as not fulfil…

ACIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. RADHAKRISHAN CONSUMER SERVICES P. LTD, THANE

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

ITA 6862/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6862/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit-8(3), M/S. Radhakrishna Consumer Aayakar Bhavan, Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Radhakrishna House, Majiwade Village Road, Majiwade, Thane-400 601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact 5839G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Anilkumar Dhondial ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :12.10.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :21.10.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-18, Mumbai Dated 31.08.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 93,62,085/- Being Deposits Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry

…r the purpose of business therefore the same are allowable as write off as a business loss. After considering the facts and the submissions and drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Chenab Foresh Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 and also following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case CIT Vs Dempo & Co. Ltd 206 ITR 291, the Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the write off of deposits is a business loss and directed the AO to delete the addition. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 3 ITA. No.6862/M/2012 6. The Ld. Departmental Representa…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. R.S. Sudheesh

ITTA/172/2013HC Telangana03 Jul 2013
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…capital assets is liable to be disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) 4 (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) I.T.A. No.172/2013 -6- 5.1 The present question deals with the view taken by the Tribunal that the claim of assessee though is not permissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, still the same is admissible under Section 37 of the Act. The contention of Revenue is that the spe…

MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/405/2007HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 260A(1)

…ons that the non-recovery of trade advances amounted to business loss and were allowed to be deducted under Section 28 and Section 37 of the Act, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Chenab Forest Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala, 96 ITR 568; and ITAs No.405/2007 Page 6 of 14 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd., 46 ITR 649. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the advances, which had been made, cannot be regarded as expenditure and it would be in the nature of debt. As it was not such a debt which…