CIT v. Chensing Ventures

291 ITR 258High Court2007#6959 most cited

What is CIT v. Chensing Ventures authority for?

Income from undisclosed sources must be assessed under the head 'Income from other sources' if it does not fall under any other specific head. Deemed income assessed under Section 69C cannot be treated as income outside the classification in Section 14.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Chensing Ventures · CIT v Chensing Ventures 291 ITR 258 · Section 14 · Section 69C · income from other sources · undisclosed income · head of income · classification of income · deemed income

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbsection 115bsection 115bbesection 69csection 115incriminating materialsection 11section 69search and seizureincome from other sourcessection 153asection 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Chensing Ventures

Tahoora Proteins, Panchmahal vs. The ITO, Ward-2 Now Ward-1, Godhra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 14Section 143(3)Section 69

…e total income. Therefore the benefit provided under sections 71 and 72 of the Act cannot be denied simply on presumptions, without there being any cogent reason and relied upon Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Chensing Ventures [2007] 291 ITR 258 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. Thus, the assessee requested the A.O. to assessee the correct income. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply made addition of Rs.1.25 crores u/s. 69 and taxed r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3.…

Jayvadan Rughnathwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…vs Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No 1474 of 2009 (Gu)) x Daulatram Rawatmull v CIT 64 ITR 593 (Cal) 7 I.T.A No. 923/Srt/2024 Jayvadan Rughnathwala, A.Y. 2018-19 xi. Mansfield and Sons v. CIT 48 ITR 254 (Cal.) xii. CIT v Chensing Ventures [(2007) 291 ITR 258 (Mad)] xii CIT v S K Srigir & Bros 171 Taxman 264 (Kar)” At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted that ground nos. 1 & 2 are not pressed. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Vardhaman Exports (265/2008) has categorically held that the payment when proved should be allowed. The ld. A.R further relie…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 87/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 279 (Gujarat) held that the income of such nature from undisclosed sources to be treated as income, should be assessed under “income from other sources”. Therefore, in the light of this legal position, there is no iota of…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 86/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 279 (Gujarat) held that the income of such nature from undisclosed sources to be treated as income, should be assessed under “income from other sources”. Therefore, in the light of this legal position, there is no iota of…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 85/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 279 (Gujarat) held that the income of such nature from undisclosed sources to be treated as income, should be assessed under “income from other sources”. Therefore, in the light of this legal position, there is no iota of…

M/S Vatsalya Builders, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Centarl Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 210/NAG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 279 (Gujarat) held that the income of such nature from undisclosed sources to be treated as income, should be assessed under “income from other sources”. Therefore, in the light of this legal position, there is no iota of…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ers India Ltd. 329 ITR 1 (Guj)  CIT vs. Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No.1474 of 2009 (Guj)  Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITRT 593 (Cal)  Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254 (Cal) 13 Thakordas Parekh & Sons  CIT vs. Chensing Ventures (2007) 291 ITR 258 (Mad)  CIT vs. S.K. Srigir & Bros. 171 Taxman 264 (Kar) 10. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that all the submissions made by ld AR for the assessee has already been considered by ld CIT(A). The assessee failed to s…

Bhima Jewellers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…sted source, the benefit of section 71 with respect to set-off was denied by the Assessing Officer by relying on Fakkir Mohmed Haji Hasan (supra). Relying on to the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Chensing Ventures MANU/TN/8359/2007 [2007] 291 ITR 258 (Mad) it is held that, once a head of income is assigned to the additional income disclosed whether business or other source, it becomes available for set-off against ITA No.15 of 2021 -12- the current year's business loss, as the current year's business loss is allowed to be set off against the curr…

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2020 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Vs. DCIT,CC-2(1) Luxora Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. 1207, 12th Floor Prathishta Bhawan ‘A’ Wing,O2 commercial 8th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Building, 23-24, Minerva Industrial Estte, Off.LBS Road, Mulund(W) Mumbai-400 080 PAN : AABCL2854K (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri K.P.Dewani Assessee by Department by Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan Date of Hearing 16.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is dir…

Hussain Mohideen Ibrahim Sha, Chennai vs. Jacit, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 11BSection 133ASection 143(3)

…under Section 115BBE of the Act till the assessment year 2016-17.” 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee referred to a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chensing Ventures reported in [2007] 291 ITR 258 (Madras), wherein, the loss sustained by the assessee, in any year under, the heads of income was permitted as set off against income under any other head. Learned counsel for assesssee also referred to a decision of Division Bench in High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income Tax- II Vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Limited reported i…

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1293, 1294, 1295 & 1296/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. Luxora DCIT, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle -2(1), 1207, 12th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, A Wing, 8th Floor, 02 Commercial Building, Mumbai Vs. 23-24, Minerva Industrial Estate, Off. LBS Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 80 PAN: AABCL2854K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajiv Harit, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.…

Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 628/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

…sessee's case no such evidence in the form of confirmation has been filed. Reliance is also placed on ACIT vs. Smt. Ganga Dei Sangarana96TTJ(Cutt. Trib.) 351, but here also the facts are clearly distinguishable. Reliance was placed on CIT vs. Chinmay Ventures 291 ITR 258 (Mad.) to say 9 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. that set off of losses should not have been denied. However, in that case the court noted that the Assessing Officer had not given any reasons for denying the set off. It is seen that the return of income was not filed by the assessee within the time prescribed for the relevant year. It is only aft…

ACIT Circle 1(1), Ujjain vs. A One Enclave, Ujjain

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…A One Enclave आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-1(1), V/s M/s. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain (Revenue) (Respondent) PAN AACFI3971J Revenue by Smt. Vinita Dubey, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri S.S. Deshpande& V.K. Ladda, CAs Date of Hearing 22.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13 is directed aga…

Sh. Sanjay Bairathi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1343/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 251

…igh Court has taken into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan vs CIT (247 ITR 290), the decision of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd (329 ITR 1) and decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Chensing Ventures (291 ITR 258). It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P) ltd (258 CTR 454) has in fact relied on the decision of Gujarat 18 ITA N0. 1343/JP/2018 Shri Sanjay Bairathi, Jaipur. High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan (supra) which has subsequently been explained in subsequent decision of Radhe Develop…

Bhima Jewellers, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad vs. The Pr CIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…set off against business loss. Thus, it was submitted that the source of income is from ‘business’ and therefore the provisions of section 115BBE is not applicable. 4.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Chensing Ventures (291 ITR 258) wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason whatsoever to deny the set off of the business loss against the income declared under the head “other sources”. Section 71 deals with set off loss against income under any other head. After setting off losses against the income under the same head, if the net result is still…

Watermark Financial Consultants Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mrs. Nidhi Patel (AR)For Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Watermark Financial Consultants The Pr. Commissioner of Limited (now known as Income Tax -3, Watermark Capital Ltd.) Aayakar Bhawan, 1009/10, Maker Chambers V, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai 400 020. PAN: AAACW3474H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mrs. Nidhi Patel (AR) Revenue by : Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR) Date of Hearing: 21/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 21/11/2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been f…

CIT v. Chensing Ventures (291 ITR 258) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax