CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries

199 ITR 67High Court1993#5450 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries authority for?

For taxability under Section 41(1), the assessee must have obtained some benefit, whether in cash or otherwise, in respect of a loss or expenditure previously allowed as a deduction. Later amendments may affect the applicability of this principle.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries · section 41(1) · section 41 · benefit in cash or otherwise · previous allowance · deduction · income tax act

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)section 41capital expenditurecommissioner (appeals)assistant commissionerprevious yeartransfersection 143companysection 143(3)total incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Indus Biotech Private Limited, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…ourt, we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

…preted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518, wherein the court concurred with the reasoning adopted by a Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries [1993] 70 Taxman 353/199 ITR 67, and held thus: “ 9. One aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As pointed out already, the crucial words in the section require that the assessee has to obtain in cash or in any other manner some benefit. That part of the section has been omitted to be considered by the Div…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…een interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. wherein the court concurred with the reasoning adopted by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries [1993] 70 Taxman 353/199 ITR 67, and held thus: '9. One aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As pointed out already, the crucial words in the section require that the assessee has to obtain in cash or in any other manner some benefit. That part of the section has been omitted to be considered by the Div…

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1883/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…nce this was a trading liability, which was written back in the year under consideration, application of the provisions of section 41(1) was perfectly justified. CIT v. Rashmi Trading [1976] 103 ITR 312 (Guj) and CIT v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries [1993] 199 ITR 67 (Guj) [FB] applied. The assessee was the owner of a property, portions of which were let to various companies. There was a tenancy agreement between the tenants and the assessee, providing for rent but specifically for the charges payable for air-conditioning, the building being centrally air- conditioned. The assessee worked out the amount receiv…

Encorp E-Service Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1882/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…nce this was a trading liability, which was written back in the year under consideration, application of the provisions of section 41(1) was perfectly justified. CIT v. Rashmi Trading [1976] 103 ITR 312 (Guj) and CIT v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries [1993] 199 ITR 67 (Guj) [FB] applied. The assessee was the owner of a property, portions of which were let to various companies. There was a tenancy agreement between the tenants and the assessee, providing for rent but specifically for the charges payable for air-conditioning, the building being centrally air- conditioned. The assessee worked out the amount receiv…

Dharamtar Motors Services Petroleum Product, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1438/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…in past year, no addition can be made referring to judgment of 325 ITR 593 (P & H) Sitadevi Juneja, 325 ITR52 (P & H) G P International, 254 ITR 434 (SC) Kesariya Tea as well as 78 ITR 55 (SC) Terunelveli Motor Bus as well as Gujarat High Court in Bharat Iron 199 ITR 67. Attention is drawn to 14 ITR 355 (Madras) in N.Rudrappa wherein it is held that where the retiring partner share in loss of the firm is forgive by the firm then Section 41(1) is not applicable. Therefore, based on the aforesaid submission, we hereby submit as under: (a) That, no onus discharged by CIT(A) as lies upon him in reference to Section 4…

Rasna Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. ITA/CO A.Y. Appellant Respondent No. 1 2334/Ahd/2015 2010-11 Rasna Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Ahmedabad Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad 2 2397/Ahd/2015 2010-11 ACIT, Circle-5, Rasna Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad 3 3666/Ahd/2015 2011-12 DCIT, Rasna Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad 4 CO No. 2011-12 Rasna Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, 04/Ahd/2016 Ahmedabad Circle-3(1)(2), (In ITA No. Ahmedabad 3666/Ahd/2015) 5 3667/Ahd/2015 2012-13 DCIT, Rasna Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ahmedabad…

M/S Vaishali Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Chinsurah, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1720/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1720/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Vaishali Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Chinsurah [Pan: Aabcv 0627 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…e find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj)(FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

Jashojit Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj.) (FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

Vijay Kumar Daga, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Kolkta

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1837/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vijay Kumar Daga -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Afupd 5201 K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Mundra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 14ASection 41Section 41(1)

…e find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj)(FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

Shree Shankar Steels, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-44(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.C.Mondal, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 41Section 41(1)

…e find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj)(FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shiraz Develoers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6631/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 41(1)

…creditor specifically waives his right against the debtor and cessation implies the occurrence of an event which puts an end to the liability. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Bharat Iron & Steel Industries, 199 ITR 67. ii) CIT v/s Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd. 236 ITR 518; and iii) CIT v/s Wardhaman Overseas Ltd., 343 ITR 408. D) Mere expiry of even a lengthy period of time the liability having been discharged by the person liable is wholly irrelevant. In this context, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd.…

The Rajasthan State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 266/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2007-08 cuke M/s The Rajasthan Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. State Co-operative Tax, Circle-06, Jaipur Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, Apex Building, Nehru Bazar, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAT0824G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. S…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…ourt, we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…ourt, we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of…

ACIT vs. M/S Alvares & Thomas

ITA 1676/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, CA
Section 131(1)(d)Section 41(1)

…e find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj)(FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

Glen Williams, Bangalore vs. Asst. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 1078/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (1992) 105 CTR (Guj)(FB) 331 : (1993) 199 ITR 67 (Guj)(FB). It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under s. 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the ligh…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA/774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supeme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to ITA No.774/2009 Page 16 of 31 attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA-774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supeme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to 2011:DHC:6638-DB ITA No.774/2009 Page 16 of 31 attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, wh…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA - 774 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…we find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court under appeal was affirmed for two reasons. The first reason was based on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries (1993) 199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supeme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to 2011:DHC:6638-DB ITA No.774/2009 Page 16 of 31 attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, wh…

CIT v. Bharat Iron & Steel Industries (199 ITR 67) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax