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

M/S Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka

The appeal is dismissed without costs

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2001Supreme Court06 Sept 2002
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA
Section 41(1)

…d Rameshwar Prasad’s case (supra) were relied upon. We have already explained the ratio of those decisions. Another case on which strong reliance was placed by the learned Judges is the judgment of the Full Bench in C.I.T. v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries, 199 ITR 67. In the said Full Bench decision, though the discussion by and large proceeded on right lines, we find that the actual decision reached in the concluding para is based on a wrong interpretation of the provision. The Full Bench was of the view that the assessee’s claim for refund of excise duty was in jeopardy in view of the pending revisional proc…