CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. (255 ITR 510)

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 946/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…t entries in Blocked Nostro accounts as per the directors of RBI. The same had been claimed as deduction while computing the total income. This is not an allowable deduction as per IT Act. It was held in 22 ITR 344 (SC) & CIT Vs Axis Advertising (P) Ltd (Mad) 255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs Add.CIT (SC) 187 ITR 54…

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 775/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.775/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 ) Indian Overseas Bank, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, Income Tax, Chennai 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 034. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.946/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011. ) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Income Tax, 763, Anna Salai, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci 1223J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. C. Naresh, C.A., Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…t entries in Blocked Nostro accounts as per the directors of RBI. The same had been claimed as deduction while computing the total income. This is not an allowable deduction as per IT Act. It was held in 22 ITR 344 (SC) & CIT Vs Axis Advertising (P) Ltd (Mad) 255 ITR 510. The same has to be brought to tax. 2. The assessee had claimed Rs.158,78,70,585 as investment written off by amortization while computing the total income. The Investment written off is not an allowable expenditure hence it is required to be withdrawn. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs Add.CIT (SC) 187 ITR 54…

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…gh court in the case of M/s Solid Containers Ltd vs DY. CIT. Spl. Range-1, Mumbai reported in 308 ITR 417. Reliance is: Iso placed on the ratio applied in the following cases: 1. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 22. ITR 344 (SC) 2. CIT V Aries Advertising (P) Ltd 255 ITR 510 (Madras) 11.4 The amount of Rs. 12,67,68,491/- is added to the income of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Income tax Act.” M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. ITA no.2116/Mum./2017 The learned DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 39. Having considered the submissions of both sides…

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point MK Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt Shailja Rai.DR Respondent by : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…e scope of the provisions rendering it liable to tax subsequently have become the assessee's income being part of the trading of the assessee. Similar view was also taken by a Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aries Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 510. The court took the view that the assessee because of trading operation Page 14 of 16 became richer by the amount which had been transferred and/or retained in the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee." 20. In the present case, the money was received by the assessee in the course of carrying on business. Although it was treated as unsecured l…

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ng reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. reported in (1996) 222 ITR 344 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 255 ITR 510 concluded that the forfeited amount is revenue receipt. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “5. The submissions made by the appellant have been examined. Considering the facts of the case it is very much apparent that consequent to the forfeiture of the amount received, the appellant was completely free to use the said amount i…

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1957/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ng reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. reported in (1996) 222 ITR 344 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 255 ITR 510 concluded that the forfeited amount is revenue receipt. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “5. The submissions made by the appellant have been examined. Considering the facts of the case it is very much apparent that consequent to the forfeiture of the amount received, the appellant was completely free to use the said amount i…

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1956/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ng reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. reported in (1996) 222 ITR 344 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 255 ITR 510 concluded that the forfeited amount is revenue receipt. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “5. The submissions made by the appellant have been examined. Considering the facts of the case it is very much apparent that consequent to the forfeiture of the amount received, the appellant was completely free to use the said amount i…

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1955/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…ng reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. reported in (1996) 222 ITR 344 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 255 ITR 510 concluded that the forfeited amount is revenue receipt. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “5. The submissions made by the appellant have been examined. Considering the facts of the case it is very much apparent that consequent to the forfeiture of the amount received, the appellant was completely free to use the said amount i…

M/S HOTHUR TRADERS ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…the day to day operations of the assessee which is treated as "income" in the hands of the assessee. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solid Containers Ltd., [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Bom) and that of Madras High Court in Aries Advertising (P.) Ltd., [2002] 255 ITR 510 case (supra) are directly on this issue. The Tribunal has rightly applied the said judgments wherein the view taken is the same as taken by this Court in Logitronics (P.) Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 386 (Delhi). 2.1 In so far as the decision in Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 87 (Delhi) is concerned, that was a case…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…come-tax (Appeals) which are dealt with as under: – i) CIT vs. Sunderam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344): ii) Solid Containers Ltd. v DCIT (308 ITR 417) (Bom): iii)CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd., 384 ITR 530 Madras: iv)CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd., 255 ITR 510 ( Mad): v) CIT vs. ICC India Pvt. Ltd., 83 CCH 74 Delhi vi) Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.4619/MUM/2006): The ld DR also contended that the arguments of the ld. AR has no merits so far the issue of assessing the said receipt under section 41(1) by the AO while the ld. CIT(A) recording a conclusion that it has to be taxed u…

M/S. OK PLAY INDIA LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 3402/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. versus Dy. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (Bom.) and decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aries Advertising Private Limited (2002) 255 ITR 510. 3.3 In view of the decisions relied upon, the ld. CIT(A) held that amount of gain on discount of FCCB has to be subjected to tax in the year in which such instrument has been discounted and consequent gain resulted would be income. 3.4 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed paper-book in two Volumes, containing pages 1 to 132 and 133 t…

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 143(1)

…f income nature, but the amounts remained with the assessee for a longer period unclaimed by the trade parties. By lapse of time, the claim of deposit became time barred and it become a trade surplus. The AO also referred to CIT vs Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 510 wherein the Madras High Court after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (Supa). Finally the Ld. AO relying on various decisions as stated above added Rs. 11.64 crores to the income of the assessee under the head profit and gains from business by framing assessment u/s 143(3) dated…

THE ITO, CORPORATE WD-2(4), KOCHI vs. M/S.TEAM FRONT LINE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is treated to be allowed

ITA 502/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…he scope of the provisions rendering it liable to tax subsequently have become the assessee’s income being part of the trading of the assessee. Similar view was also taken by a Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 510. The court took the view that the assessee because of trading operation became richer by the amount which 11 I.T.A. No.502/Coch/2018 had been transferred and or retained in the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee.” 7.4 In the case of CIT vs Aries Advertising P. Ltd., 255 ITR 510 (Mad), an amount of Rs.1,77,886/-, being the balance due to P…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 41(1)Section 68

…and Thapar 222 ITR 112 (SC)[1996] 3.Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CIT 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) (MAG.) [2011] 4. CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. 384 ITR 530 (Madras) [2016] 5. Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) [2009] 6.CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 510 (Mad.)” 4. The learned AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The assessee during the assessment proceedings has submitted complete details as required by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee is a private limited company an…

AREVA T & D LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT

Section 28

…n was completed as per business expediency and in the course of ongoing business. Thus, the amount is clearly taxable u/s.28 (iv) of the IT Act. 4.2. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Aries Advertising Co. Ltd. (255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. For these and other grounds that…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AREVA T & D INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT

Section 28

…n was completed as per business expediency and in the course of ongoing business. Thus, the amount is clearly taxable u/s.28 (iv) of the IT Act. 4.2. Having regard to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Aries Advertising Co. Ltd. (255 ITR 510) wherein, it was observed that (quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. — (133 ITR 559) any amount transferred by the assessee to the General Reserve is treated as profits of the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. For these and other grounds that…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. TRANQUIL HOMES & HOLDING P.LTD, BANGALORE

ITA 299/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

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

…ome and in the break up submitted on 01-06-2011, aforesaid amount of Rs.4.50 crores was offered as part of income. Thus, under these circumstances, the AO relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd vs DCIT (2002) 255 ITR 510 (Bom) and held that the impugned amount received as advance on account of share capital from M/s Anand Transport, which was subsequently forfeited and credited to capital reserve account was income of the assessee arising out of business activity of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. NALWA CHROME P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 238/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

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

…ome and in the break up submitted on 01-06-2011, aforesaid amount of Rs.4.50 crores was offered as part of income. Thus, under these circumstances, the AO relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd vs DCIT (2002) 255 ITR 510 (Bom) and held that the impugned amount received as advance on account of share capital from M/s Anand Transport, which was subsequently forfeited and credited to capital reserve account was income of the assessee arising out of business activity of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee filed first appeal before Ld. CIT…

M/S. HI- TECH ELECTROTHERMICS & HYDROPOWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6080/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jian, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41

…represent income of the assessee therein. But, in the facts of the present case, the loan received by the assessee was for the purchase of capital asset. Ld. A.O. has also placed reliance upon the decision of CIT Vs V S Adies Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 255 ITR 510. A perusal of this judgment, it is observed that the assessee therein had written off claim and credited balances of the supplies during the normal course of its business operation and such credit balance represents money arrived out of normal trade transaction. The facts of this case are also distinguishable for the reason that in the present ca…

CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd.

ACIT LTU 2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-2, CHENNAI

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

M/S HOTHUR TRADERS ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

M/S. OK PLAY INDIA LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, GURGAON

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

THE ITO, CORPORATE WD-2(4), KOCHI vs. M/S.TEAM FRONT LINE LTD, KOCHI

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD., NEW DELHI

AREVA T & D LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AREVA T & D INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. TRANQUIL HOMES & HOLDING P.LTD, BANGALORE

DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI vs. NALWA CHROME P.LTD, MUMBAI

M/S. HI- TECH ELECTROTHERMICS & HYDROPOWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI