CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd.

259 ITR 114High Court2003#7583 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 429

Sections most often in play

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd.

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 9540/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Roop Kishore Madan, Vs. ACIT, A-9/4, Vasant Vihar, Circle-16, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABWPM6914G Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 04.11.2019. 2. Fo…

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

…on lease on landlord becoming insolvent, is an allowable as business loss as the lease was taken for the purpose of business. 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 Depar…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…-how without ownership of any property, would be an expenditure allowable u/s 37(1). The Mumbai Tribunal in Pik Pen Private Ltd. V/s ITO (ITA No.6847/Mum/2008), following the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT V/s Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. (259 ITR 114), held that the advances written-off for purchase of machinery which was not supplied, would be revenue expenditure. Similar is the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Jackie Shroff V/s ACIT (174 ITD 770) which held that money advanced out of commercial expediency would be an allowable deduction. The ratio of all the stated decisions support the concl…

M/S. LUCKY EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 37(1)

…submitted that when advances given for acquisition of capital asset were written off, the same were allowed as business loss. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 114, the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Swastik Pipes Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR (T) 1 and various other decisions. He accordingly submitted that the claim of the assessee towards business loss on account of advances written during the year has to be allowed as business loss and the order of the CIT(A) be set aside. 11. The ld. D…

DCIT, CIR-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S CHLORIDE POWER SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir-2(1), Kolkata Vs M/S. Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd. Pan: Aabcc1825B Deptt (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, FCA, ld.AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA (Before Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata Vs M/s. Chloride Power Systems & Solutions Ltd. PAN: AABCC1825B Deptt (Respondent) Deptt by : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld.DR Respondent by : Shri Anup Sinha, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 16-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 10-04 -2019 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the ld.CIT (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, in ITA No. 478/CIT(A)-4/Ci…

M/S. ZAMBAD MOUNT VIEW PROJECT PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1856/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1856/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Zambad Mount View Project Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 2 & 3, N-2, Mukundwadi, Cidco, Jalna Road, Aurangabad PAN : AAACZ4417D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम/ V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(1), Aurangabad ……""यथ"/ Respondent Assessee by : Shri J.P. Bairagra Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 30-10-2018 घोषणा क" ता…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S SUKH SAGAR ENCLAVE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1116/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1116/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke I.T.O. M/s Sukh Sagar Enclave, Vs. Ward-2(2), 38, Shiv Path, Suraj Nagar West, Jaipur. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACAS 8980 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee b…

BALAJI MURLIDHAR ARAKAL,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2662/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2662/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balaji Murlidhar Arakal, 155/2A1, Akkalkot Road, Gandhi Nagar, Solapur. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aebpa4354G …. Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(3), …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Solapur.

For Appellant: Shri P. S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

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

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, पुणे"यायपीठ “एक-सद"यमामला” पुणेम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ीडी. क"णाकराराव, लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2662/PUN/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balaji Murlidhar Arakal, 155/2A1, Akkalkot Road, Gandhi Nagar, Solapur. अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN : AEBPA4354G …. Vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Solapur. अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri P. S. Shingte ""यथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Gawli सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ घोषणाक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 01.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2018 आदेश/ ORDER PER…

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

…bmissions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance on the following judgmental laws giving brief details of the findings in those cases : 1. M/s. Binnal Cement Ltd. Vs. CIT – Income Tax Appeal No.265 of 2009 (Cal.) 2. CIT Vs. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. 259 ITR 114 3. Excel Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 86 TTJ 840 (Mumbai) 4. Lawkim Ltd. Vs. JCIT 1 SOT 908 (Mum.) 5. CIT Vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. – Appeal No.516 of 2015 (Bombay High Court) Thus, it is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in a case where assessee had a proposal to expand business into different product lines of manufacturing of Ca…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1325/PUN/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Pramod AchuthanFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 15ASection 35A

DCIT,CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ALL INDIA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 52/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri, M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 DCIT, Circle-11(1), V/s. M/s All India P-7 Chowringhee Technologies Ltd., 5, Square, Kolkata-69 Lower Rowdon Street, Kolkata-20 [PAN No.AAACI1661 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Singhi, FCA & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Avishhek Tibrewal, ACA 11-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/D…

M/S. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…e nature of a capital loss. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessee’s claim, following the decision in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Chemical Products Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 582 (Mad); CIT v. Graphite India Ltd [1996] 221 ITR 420 (Cal) and CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 114 (Raj). Before we proceed further in the matter, it would be relevant to ascertain the facts and determine the nature of the expenditure and, thus, the issues arising in respect of the said claim. The visbreaker unit was originally commissioned in 1979. In February, 1995, it was decided to revamp the same, upon which it would be able to handle 5.5…

ZENRIBA ESTATES & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5105/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5105/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Jahangir Mistri&For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIR. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5105/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Zenriba Estates & DCIT 7(3), Investments Pvt. Ltd. AayakarBhavan, M. K. बिधम/ Ceejay House, Level 6 Shiv Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Sagar Estate, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAACZ0249F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Jahangir Mistri& Shri V. V. Zaveri प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vidhyadhar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03/08/2017 Date of H…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, 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

…usiness loss. It was pointed out that in the present case the Assessee did not acquire any capital asset and merely paid advance. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. 259 ITR 114 (Raj.) wherein it was held that advances made to agriculturist for purchase of land which was not refunded was a business loss and had to be allowed as deduction. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pik Pen Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No.6847/Mum/2008 order dated 28.01.2010 laying down the identical proposition. 25…

BAYER BIOSCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…and cannot be treated as capital expenditure as observed by the ld. CIT(A). The claim of the assessee is also found supported by the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjani 21 ITA No.5388 & 2685/Del./2009 Kumar Co. Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 114 (Raj.) wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “The admitted facts are that the advance was paid for acquiring the agricultural land to setup a factory, but when the agricultural land was not acquired, no capital asset came into existence, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on such asset. If any asset is acquired and i…