CIT 1978 CTR(SC)5: (1978) 111 ITR 2&3(SC). Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

143 ITR 922High Court1983#19216 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing CIT 1978 CTR(SC)5: (1978) 111 ITR 2&3(SC). Sassoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JHANDEWALAN vs. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 1085 & CO No. 36/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 JCIT(OSD), Vs Sahara India Real Estate Central Circle-1, Corporation Ltd., 1, Sahara India New Delhi-110055 Bhawan, Kapoorthala, Complex Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7265F Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judici…

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), MYSORE

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

ITA 952/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)

Section 234A

…Year 2012-13. He placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his claim that this should be allowed as deduction in the present year. These judgements are as under. A) Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (111 ITR 263 (SC)) B) CIT Vs. P.V. Gore & Co. (143 ITR 922 (BOM)) C) Jitmal& Sons Vs. ITO (11 TTJ 0160 (IndoreTrib) D) DCIT Vs. Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. (33 CCH 200 Del Trib.) E) Silicon Graphics Systems (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (106 TTJ (Del) 1153) 5. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted that none of these judgements cited by the learned AR of t…

DCIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HALDYN GLASS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…td vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 161 (Bom) relying on the decision of CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 FIR 707 (SC),Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC), Sassoon J. David Co, (P) Ltd.vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom), CIT vs.P.V.Gore &. Co. (1983) 143 ITR 922(Bom) and Badridas Daga vs. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) , it was held that the real controversy that falls for determination in such cases is whether the loss is incidental to the operation of the business and. this question evidently has to be decided on the facts of each case having regard to the nature of the business and the operations carried on…

DCIT, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NAVYUG ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 651/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…siness activity of assessee. There is no provision under the Act for the non-deduction of such losses incurred by assessee. In holding so, we find guidance & support from the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.Gore and Co. (1983) 143 ITR 922 (Bom) where the Hon'ble Court held that “if there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or where the loss is incidental to the business operation of the assessee, the loss is allowable as a business loss”. Accordingly respectfully following the precedent as above we hold that there is no infirmity in the orde…