CIT v. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd.

356 ITR 285High Court#24636 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd.

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ity of the view taken by the AO, upheld the same. 5.2 Before us, the ld. AR fairly admitted that the issue in question was covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd 356 ITR 285 (Del.) it was submitted by the Ld. AR, that the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that the furnishing of bank guarantee when payment has been received, will not make any difference as the language of Section 41(1) is clear that the amount should have been received either in cash or in any other manner. At the same time, it was submitted by the…

Frick India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle-11 (1)

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 2072/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ity of the view taken by the AO, upheld the same. 5.2 Before us, the ld. AR fairly admitted that the issue in question was covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd 356 ITR 285 (Del.) it was submitted by the Ld. AR, that the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that the furnishing of bank guarantee when payment has been received, will not make any difference as the language of Section 41(1) is clear that the amount should have been received either in cash or in any other manner. At the same time, it was submitted by the…

Shri Ashish Haribhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2078/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 44A

…nguished and there is no possibility of its revival in future, it cannot be said that the liability has ceased, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court , reported in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd., in 356 ITR 285 (Delhi). As per section 41, profit chargeable to tax, (1) where -an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability, incurred by the assessee, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has obtained , whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount…

CIT v. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. (356 ITR 285) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax