CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2))

177 ITR 128High Court1989#11201 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)disallowance of interest expendituresection 41business expediencysundry creditorssection 44asection 40a(3)section 36(1)(iii)commercial expediencydisallowance under section 14asection 40asection 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2))

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 807/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…d, the liability does not cease. The Ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision(s)of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT) [1978] 114 ITR 853 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2)) [1989] 177 ITR 128. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-Il v. Nitin S. Garg [2012] 22 taxmann.com 59, which supports the view that liabilities shown in the balance sheet cannot be presumed to have ceased. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the mere lapse of time does not lead to the cessation of liability, and sufficient…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Oriental Enterprises Private Limited, Pcc Notified Area

ITA 732/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…d, the liability does not cease. The Ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision(s)of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT) [1978] 114 ITR 853 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2)) [1989] 177 ITR 128. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-Il v. Nitin S. Garg [2012] 22 taxmann.com 59, which supports the view that liabilities shown in the balance sheet cannot be presumed to have ceased. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the mere lapse of time does not lead to the cessation of liability, and sufficient…

Oriental Enterprise Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 661/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…d, the liability does not cease. The Ld.CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision(s)of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT) [1978] 114 ITR 853 and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2)) [1989] 177 ITR 128. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-Il v. Nitin S. Garg [2012] 22 taxmann.com 59, which supports the view that liabilities shown in the balance sheet cannot be presumed to have ceased. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the mere lapse of time does not lead to the cessation of liability, and sufficient…

Assam Supari Traders, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8717/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 8717/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Assam Supari Traders, Vs Acit, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Circle-48(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaofa7566M Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…re is no justification for making addition of Rs. 25,39,190/- u/s 41(1) of the IT Act. 12. For this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following judgments:  CIT vs. Sugauli Works Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC)  CIT vs. Chase Bright Steel Pvt. Ltd. 177 ITR 128 (HC) (Bombay)  ACIT vs. M/s Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers LLP ITA 26/PAN/2018 13. Provisions of Section 41(1) reads as under: “41. (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 (hereinafter referred to as the first-mention…

Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Dona Paula

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 381/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 40Section 41(1)

…ould not have been made in its hand u/s.41(1) of the Act during the year in question. The CIT(Appeals) while concluding as hereinabove had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Chase Bright Steel Pvt. Ltd., 177 ITR 128 (Bom.)and vacated the aforesaid addition of Rs.9,96,547/- that was made by the A.O u/s.41(1) of the Act. 20. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in hand, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O had failed to substantiate his claim that the outstanding liability of the assesee company towards…

Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Dona Paula vs. Joint Comm. of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 380/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Cidade De Goa, Vainguinim Beach, Dona Paula, Goa-403 004. Pan : Aaaci9107R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Panaji-Goa, ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 381/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji-Goa, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 40Section 41(1)

…ould not have been made in its hand u/s.41(1) of the Act during the year in question. The CIT(Appeals) while concluding as hereinabove had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Chase Bright Steel Pvt. Ltd., 177 ITR 128 (Bom.)and vacated the aforesaid addition of Rs.9,96,547/- that was made by the A.O u/s.41(1) of the Act. 20. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in hand, we find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as the A.O had failed to substantiate his claim that the outstanding liability of the assesee company towards…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Alliance Finstock Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5616/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner M/S Alliance Finstock Ltd. Of Income Tax Central G-1, Court Chambers, Vs. Circle-4(2), Mumbai Ground Floor, V. Thakersay Central Range-4 Pr. Marg, 35, New Marine Cit(C)-2 Mumbai Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadca9058Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 53/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Alliance Finstock Ltd. Deputy Commissioner G-1, Court Chambers, Of Income Tax Central Vs. Ground Floor, V. Thakersay Circle-4(2), Mumbai Marg, 35, New Marine Central Range-4 Pr. Lines, Mumbai-400020. Cit(C)-2 Mumbai Pan No. Aadca9058Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner M/s Alliance Finstock Ltd. of Income Tax Central G-1, Court Chambers, Vs. Circle-4(2), Mumbai Ground floor, V. Thakersay Central Range-4 Pr. Marg, 35, New Marine CIT(C)-2 Mumbai Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCA9058Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 53/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Alliance Finstock Ltd. Deputy Commissioner G-1, Court Chambers, of Income Tax Central Vs. Ground floor, V. Thakersay Circle-4(2), Mumb…

K. Bhatia Corporation, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT Cir 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 637/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: ShriH. Anoop
Section 37(1)Section 68

…and hence, the provisions of 24 I.T.A. No. 637/Mum/2012 M/s K. Bhatia Corporation section 41(1) do not get triggered at all. In this respect, we draw strength from the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (1989) 177 ITR 128. Keeping in view our above discussion, we direct the AO to delete the addition and thus this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. Ground No. 3 7. This ground is general in nature, thus requires no specific adjudication. 8. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th Jun…

Riteplaza Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 5558/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…ssee has raised loan in the year 2007. Therefore, there is no reason for the AO to invoke the provisions of section 68 to make addition. In this regard, the Ld.AR relied on the following decisions:- 1.Ambica Mills 54 ITR 167 (Guj) 2. Chase Bright Steel Ltd 177 ITR 128 (Guj) 7 ITA 5558/Mum/2017 3. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518 (SC) 4. Liquidator, Mysore Agencies (P) Ltd 114 ITR 852 (Kar) 5. Cipla Investments Ltd 33 SOT 317 (OM) 6. Airline Allied Services Ltd 2017) 167 ITD 717 (Del-Trib) 7. Bombay Gas Co Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 13 (Mum) 8. Samrat Rice Mills (P) Ltd 54 SOT 1 (Del) 9. Tosha International…

CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd (No.2)) (177 ITR 128) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax