CIT v. Baldeoram Beharilal

99 ITR 108High Court1975#21821 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Baldeoram Beharilal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAMA CYLINDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7337/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Cylinders Pvt. Income Tax- 3(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor 181, Maker Tower, Aayakar Bhavan “E”, Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccr8653D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…amount along with interest advanced by an assessee, a sole selling agent, to the company and the shares that it got in lieu thereof was treated as a bad debt. Reliance was also placed on the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Baldeoram Beharilal [1975] 99 ITR 108. In that case, the amounts advanced by the assesses to an under-broker from time to time to be adjusted against his under-brokerage were written off as loss in a subsequent year in which the under-broker had expired. Shri Dastur also referred to and relied on the Madras High Court's decisions in CIT v. Textool Co. Ltd. [1982] 135 ITR 200 and CIT v…

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s u/s 28 of the Act . She placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT reported in (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) (b) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Baldeoram Beharilal reported in (1975) 99 ITR 108 (Cal) (c ) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 197 ITR 528 (Ker) (d) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd reported in (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) 14.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act were not…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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

…Sugar Co. Ltd (46 ITR 649)(SC) (ii). ACIT vs.Shantilal Balabhai (74 TTJ 506)(ITAT Ahd.) (iii). Gujrat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT (76 TTJ 313)(ITAT Ahd.) (iv). CIT vs. Deccan Sugars & Abkhari & Co. Ltd. (157 ITR 467 (Mad.) (v). CIT vs. Baldeoram Heharilal (99 ITR 108 (Cal.). 19. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 20. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and perusing the material on record, we find that the advance was given to A+E Consultants for setting up a construction of green house. This project was not materialized and the advance given to the a…