CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. v. CIT

383 ITR 480High Court2016#17880 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 28(iiid)Section 28(iiie)Section 35DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(i)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)disallowance u/s 14asection 36(1)section 37(1)section 36section 14aprevious yearcompanyindiatotal income

Judgments citing CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. 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)

…ng 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) 85. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that interest income of inter corporate deposit had been assessed as business income. Further as per object clause of the memorandum of association produced at para 8.2 of the assessment order it is clear that money lending was a part of the business act…

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

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)

…ng 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) 85. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that interest income of inter corporate deposit had been assessed as business income. Further as per object clause of the memorandum of association produced at para 8.2 of the assessment order it is clear that money lending was a part of the business act…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…uestion of deduction under s. 37 of the Act even if it was not raised before the authorities below.’’ III) License is not a requirement for money lending business: (10) The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Vivek Engineering & Casting Ltd in 383 ITR 480 (paper book pages 104 to 106A) has held that money lent claimed as bad debt was allowable even after noticing that the assessee did not have money lending licence but was carrying on the business of money lending. (11) The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs Smt.Padma S Bora in (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 319 has held as reproduced hereunder: “5. Ha…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…, 34 ITR 10, 'A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. VS. CIT', 48 ITR 67, 'ALL GROW FINANCE AND INVESTMENT P LTD. VS. CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. CIT', 348 ITR 109, 'CIT VS. VIVEK ENGINEERING & CASTING LTD.', 383 ITR 480, 'CIT VS. SMT.PADMA S. BORA', (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 319, 'CIT VS. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO LTD', 138 ITR 763. 8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the revenue and the findings are based on proper app…

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…, 34 ITR 10, 'A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. VS. CIT', 48 ITR 67, 'ALL GROW FINANCE AND INVESTMENT P LTD. VS. CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. CIT', 348 ITR 109, 'CIT VS. VIVEK ENGINEERING & CASTING LTD.', 383 ITR 480, 'CIT VS. SMT.PADMA S. BORA', (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 319, 'CIT VS. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO LTD', 138 ITR 763. 8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the revenue and the findings are based on proper app…

CIT', 338 ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD. v. CIT (383 ITR 480) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax