CIT v. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd.

242 ITR 22High Court2000#4481 most cited

What is CIT v. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd. authority for?

No notional interest can be added to the income of an assessee on interest-free advances given by them, as there is no provision in the Income Tax Act permitting such an addition.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Goyal M.G. Gases · interest-free advance · notional interest · income addition · Section 69 · Section 143(3) · no provision

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 69section 271(1)(c)section 153section 153asection 15previous yearsection 143(3)indiadocumentinterestbusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd.

Rajesh Prasad, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnsh Sainiita No. 110/Del./2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S.K.Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee to charge interest on the debit balance for delayed payment. No material is also produced on record to justify the addition on account of notional interest so charged by the AO. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of B and A Plantation and Industries 242 ITR 22 held that there is no provision in Income Tax Act, empowering the ITO to include in the income of assessee, interest which were not due or collected. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Raman and Company 67 ITR 11 held that law does not oblige a trader to make maximize profit. In the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee did not c…

ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Anchor Residency P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4407/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

…easing & Finance Ltd. - [(2006) 215 CTR (Raj) 51] [In the context of interest income] Realities of life have to be considered while arriving at taxable income. IV. ACCRUAL CONCERNING INTEREST INCOME 1. B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. v/s. CIT- [(2000) 242 ITR 22 (Gauhati)] Held, that there was no provision in the Income - tax Act empowering the income -tax authorities to include in the income, interest which was not due or not collected. If the assessee had not bargained for interest; or had not collected interest, it was not open to the income - tax authorities to fix a notional interest and assess it. 2…

Manipur Tea Co. Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2692/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 14ASection 250

…said Smart Tourist Private Limited and other persons similarly situated, nothing can be added by way of notional income. A reference was made to the decision of the Guwahati High Court in B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. v Commissioner of Income -Tax: 242 ITR 22. The relevant portion of that decision reads as under:- "As regards the addition of notional interest the assessee made an interest free advance of Rs. 19,58,256 to Jorhat Investments Ltd., which is a sister concern. The case of the assessee is that they did not charge interest on that advance and in consideration of the same the assessee got the…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ethl Global Capital Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 185/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./185/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09 Dcit,5(1)(2), M/S. Ethl Global Capital Ltd. Room No.568, 5Th Floor 19, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400 020 Pan:Aabce 4907 A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri P.R. Ghosh-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06.01.2017 लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- Challenging The Orders Dated 21.10.2014 Of The Cit(A)- 9,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Holding Investment In Shares & Debentures Of Companies,Filed Its Return Of Income On 23.09.2008,Disclosing Total Income At Rs.Nil. Original Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of. Act On 29.10.2010. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 Of I.T. Act & Reassessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Act On 28/03/2013 ,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.4,26,49,193/-.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh-DR
Section 133(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “अई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./185/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09 DCIT,5(1)(2), M/s. ETHL Global Capital Ltd. Room No.568, 5th Floor 19, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400 020 PAN:AABCE 4907 A (अपीलाथ" /assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by: Shri P.R. Ghosh-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee by: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwal…

M/S. Matrix Infrastructure, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5428/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…me were utilized elsewhere, and therefore, hypothetically estimating interest income at the rate of 12% on Rs.5.5 crores, was not justified. The ld. AR also relied on the judicial pronouncement in the case of B & A Plantations & Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 22 (Gau). 22. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The finding of the ld. ld. AO that the fund of Rs.5.50 crores was invested elsewhere and details of which was not disclosed, is found not to be correct. The assessee has submitted details of utilization of the funds before the ld CIT(A) and according to which it is…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Asian Technocrates P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA - 931 / 2010HC Delhi26 Jul 2010
Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. ITA 931/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus . ASIAN TECHNOCRATES P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Poonam Ahiya with Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates AND 4. ITA 932/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate . versus . ASIAN TECHNOCRATES P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Poonam Ahiya with Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE…