CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd.

292 ITR 399High Court2007#1999 most cited

What is CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The Madras High Court in CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. held that deductions for bad and doubtful debts arising from hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions are allowable.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. · 292 ITR 399 · bad debts deduction · hire purchase loan · mortgage loan · deduction for doubtful debts

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)section 41(4)depreciation on softwaresection 2(42a)section 43(6)(c)non-compete feesection 43(6)section 41(1)put to usesection 36(1)(vii)block of assetscomputer software

Judgments citing CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Oliviya Apparels Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1211/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1211 to 1212/Bang/2013 Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. Olivia Apparels Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, No.208, West Minister Complex, Central Circle 2(3), Cunningham Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 052. PAN: AAACO 4522F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1251 to 1253/Bang/2013 Assessment years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Olivia Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore – 560 052. Income Tax, PAN: AAACO 4522F…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…Ld.AR also relied on following decisions in support of this contention: i) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd v JCIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 16 (Mum-Trib) (ii) ITO v Spice Communications Ltd [2010] 35 SOT 78 (Delhi) (iii) CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 292 ITR 399] (iv) CIT v Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bombay) (v) CIT v Asian Paints (India) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay) (vi) DCIT v Polygel Industries (P.) Ltd [2015] 56 taxmann.com 198 (Mumbai - Trib.) (vii) PCIT v Seagram Manufacturing (P.) Ltd [2017] 78 taxmann.com 293 (Delhi) (viii) CIT v Spice Distribution Ltd [2015] 374 ITR…

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

…Ld.AR also relied on following decisions in support of this contention: i) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd v JCIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 16 (Mum-Trib) (ii) ITO v Spice Communications Ltd [2010] 35 SOT 78 (Delhi) (iii) CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 292 ITR 399] (iv) CIT v Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bombay) (v) CIT v Asian Paints (India) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay) (vi) DCIT v Polygel Industries (P.) Ltd [2015] 56 taxmann.com 198 (Mumbai - Trib.) (vii) PCIT v Seagram Manufacturing (P.) Ltd [2017] 78 taxmann.com 293 (Delhi) (viii) CIT v Spice Distribution Ltd [2015] 374 ITR…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…e Ld.AR also relied on following decisions in support of this contention: i) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd v JCIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 16 (Mum-Trib) (ii) ITO v Spice Communications Ltd [2010] 35 SOT 78 (Delhi) (iii) CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 292 ITR 399] (iv) CIT v Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bombay) (v) CIT v Asian Paints (India) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 152 (Bombay) (vi) DCIT v Polygel Industries (P.) Ltd [2015] 56 taxmann.com 198 (Mumbai - Trib.) (vii) PCIT v Seagram Manufacturing (P.) Ltd [2017] 78 taxmann.com 293 (Delhi) (viii) CIT v Spice Distribution Ltd [2015] 374 ITR…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 76/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 287/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(4)

…ts: 12.1 The assessee debited Rs.816.07 Lacs as bad and doubtful debts. The same were mainly related to the hire purchase and mortgage loan transactions. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad). However, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M/s South Indian Surgical Corporation Ltd. V/s CIT (287 ITR 62) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Dhall Enterprises & Engineers Ltd. (207 CTR 729), the claim was disallowed as was done in assessment order for AY 2005-06. The Ld. CIT(A), following appellat…

Asst CIT 1 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Janakalyn Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result these appeals by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6840/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(yii)

…nd only requirement remains that it should be "written off in books of accounts of the assesses, which has been further clarified by CBDT Circular no. 551 dated 23/01/1990. Our view find support firm the ratio laid down in CIT vs Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. 292 ITR 399 (Mad.), CIT vs Morgan Securities and credits 4 M/s. Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited Pvt. Ltd. (210 CTR 336)(Del.), DCIT vs Oman International Bank Saog.(313 ITR 128)(Bom.), CIT vs. Star chemicals(Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 220 CTR 319 (BOM.), CIT vs. Global Capital Ltd. 201 taxation 210 (Del.), CIT vs M/s. Excel Fashion Pvt. Ltd. (201 taxation 216)(Del.)…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Coal Shipments Pvt Ltd.: 82 ITR 90…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Coal Shipments Pvt Ltd.: 82 ITR 90…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…and Co. Ltd.: 315 ITR 134(Bom) x. CIT v. Liberty Group Marketing Division: 315 ITR 125 (P&H) xi. CIT v. Rakhra Technologies (P)Ltd.: 243 CTR 505(P&H) xii. DCIT v. Core Healthcare Limited: 308 ITR 263 (Gujarat HC) xiii. CIT v. Brilliant Tutorials (P) Limited: 292 ITR 399 (Mad.) v. In that view of the matter, payment of Rs. 5,00,000 described as non- compete fees in the agreements, did not result in an enduring advantage, would have to be treated as deductible revenue expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Coal Shipments Pvt Ltd.: 82 ITR 90…