CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.

138 ITR 763High Court1982#4437 most cited

What is CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. authority for?

Advances made to subsidiaries, even if irrecoverable, can be considered as business expenditure if they are part of the assessee's sustained business activity of financing and guiding subsidiaries. Not charging interest on such advances does not negate the allowability of the claim.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. · Section 28 · Section 37(1) · business expenditure · advances to subsidiaries · irrecoverable expenditure · financing subsidiaries

Also reported as

74 ITD 117

Sections most often in play

Section 28Section 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…e ITAT relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Amalgamation (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 132/226 ITR 188 and Essen (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 625 (SC) and of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. [1982] 9 Taxman 76/138 ITR 763. 14. In the present case, while the nomenclature used for the expenditure incurred may have been different during AYs 1989-90 and 1990-91 where it was 'loans and advances' which were subsequently written off, the fact remains that it was an irrecoverable expenditure as far as the Assessee was concerned. In the present AYs as well, what was paid a…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…rely of fact, the same do not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.’’ IV) Not charging interest is not fatal to allow the claim: (12) The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd in 138 ITR 763 has observed as under (paper book pages 109 to 112): ‘’ 3……."We have given careful and anxious thought to the rival submissions made by both the sides. In our opinion, the assessee's case is well founded. From the facts as narrated in the earlier portion of this order, it would be clear that the assessee-company was engaged in various business ac…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. CIT', 348 ITR 109, 'CIT VS. VIVEK ENGINEERING & CASTING LTD.', 383 ITR 480, 'CIT VS. SMT.PADMA S. BORA', (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 319, 'CIT VS. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO LTD', 138 ITR 763. 8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the revenue and the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is further submitted that no substantial question of law arises for considerati…

KOKUYO CAMLIN LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhkokuyo Camlin Limited Acit -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Midc, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacc1647E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (158 Taxman 74(SC). 2. CIT vs. Amalgamation (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 132(SC). 3. CIT vs. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (2014) 47 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). 4. CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (136 ITR 825). 5. CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (138 ITR 763 Kol). 6. Jackie Shroff vs. ACIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 455 (Mum. Trib.). 7. ACIT vs. OSN Infrastructure & Projects Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 345/Del/2015). 8. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 147/Del/2010). 9. ACIT vs. Best & Cromption Engineering Ltd. [2013] 36 taxmann.com 555. 10. M/s Summit Investments Ltd. vs. JCIT (ITA No. 338/Kol/1999…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ate Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (A…

PRL COMM OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S NUZIVIDU SWATHI COASTAL CONSORTIUM, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/147/2016HC Telangana24 Aug 2018

Bench: M.GANGA RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…ITR 496, 'POYSHA OXYGEN (P) LTD VS. ACIT', 19 SOT 711, 'MOHAN MEAKIN LTD VS. CIT', 348 ITR 109, 'CIT VS. VIVEK ENGINEERING & CASTING LTD.', 383 ITR 480, 'CIT VS. SMT.PADMA S. BORA', (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 319, 'CIT VS. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO LTD', 138 ITR 763. 8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as tribunal has recorded a finding in favour of the revenue and the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is further submitted that no substantial question of law arises for considerati…

CHAITANYA BUILDERS & LEASING (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1829/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1829/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Respondent: Mr.A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी !ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1829/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. M/s.Chaitanya Builders & Leasing (P) The Asst. Commissioner of Ltd., No.15, 4th Floor, Income Tax, Circle-I(3), Kakani towers, Khader Nawaz Khan Chennai. Road, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAACC 1338 E] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) : अपीलाथ- क0 ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.T.N.S…

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…reported in (1975) 99 ITR 108 (Cal) (c ) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 197 ITR 528 (Ker) (d) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd reported in (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) 14.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act were not complied with by the assessee for claiming deduction in respect of TDS recoverable written off and advance to suppliers written off. 14.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…reported in (1975) 99 ITR 108 (Cal) (c ) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd vs CIT reported in (1992) 197 ITR 528 (Ker) (d) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd reported in (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) 14.3. In response to this, the ld DR argued that the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act were not complied with by the assessee for claiming deduction in respect of TDS recoverable written off and advance to suppliers written off. 14.4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCNALLY BHARATI ENGINEERING CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07 D.C.I.T-Circle-1, -vs.- M/s. McNally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCM 9443 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.13/Kol/2011 (A/o I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011) Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/s. McNally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd., -vs- D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCM 9443 R] (Cross Objector) (Respondent) I.T.A No.532/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T-Circle-1, -vs.- M/s. McNally Bharat Engineering…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 379/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…t event, it cannot but be held that the advance was made for the purpose of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sal…

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 303/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…t event, it cannot but be held that the advance was made for the purpose of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sal…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA RYERSON LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1124/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…t event, it cannot but be held that the advance was made for the purpose of business and the advance cannot be said to have been made for any other consideration extraneous or otherwise.—CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (1981) 24 CTR (Cal) 339 : (1982) 138 ITR 763 (Cal) relied on; CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC) applied; CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 361 : (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Del) and CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (All) 132 : (1991) 187 ITR 363 (All) distinguished. From the accounts, it appears, as was found by the Tribunal, that the total sal…

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…s arising on sale of some of these delinquent trade debts / receivables would essentially be a trading profit or loss arising during ordinary course of assessee’s business. The assessee relied on following decisions: - CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. 195 ITR 331 (Chennai) - Jrcon International Ltd. Vs. DCIT 74 ITD 117 (Del.) 35.2. The assessee further pointed out that the impugned loss on sale of loan portfolio was in the nature of bad debt, written off and, accordingly, allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act read with section 36(2) of the Act. The assessee pointed out that all the conditions in respect of…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…s arising on sale of some of these delinquent trade debts / receivables would essentially be a trading profit or loss arising during ordinary course of assessee’s business. The assessee relied on following decisions: - CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. 195 ITR 331 (Chennai) - Jrcon International Ltd. Vs. DCIT 74 ITD 117 (Del.) 35.2. The assessee further pointed out that the impugned loss on sale of loan portfolio was in the nature of bad debt, written off and, accordingly, allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act read with section 36(2) of the Act. The assessee pointed out that all the conditions in respect of…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (138 ITR 763) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax