CIT v. Jyoti Ltd.

219 ITR 388Reported decision#23801 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Jyoti Ltd.

RAYMOND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. -2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2660/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Raymond Limited v. Addl. CIT– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACR4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT–2(3) v. M/s. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACR4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Department by : Sh…

M/S. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2519/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Raymond Limited V. Addl. Cit– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit–2(3) V. M/S. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacr4896A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Raymond Limited v. Addl. CIT– Range 2(3) New Hind House 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Narottam Morarjee Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACR4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT–2(3) v. M/s. Raymond Limited Room No. 555 New Hind House Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AAACR4896A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Department by : Sh…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2110/KOL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2110/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03)

For Appellant: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…ct. Irrespective of the fact that, the provision was made M/s CFL Capital Finances Services Ltd. Assessment Year:2002-03 over non-performing assets following RBI guideline. The Assessing Officer also referred the decision in the case of Jyoti Ltd. reported in 219 ITR 388 and in the case of State Bank of Patiala reported in 219 ITR 706, the Apex Court held that a provision can be allowed only when the liability has crystallized and not before that. Here, the assessee makes the provision under surmise and assumption that the debt will be bad in future. When it is actually lost, it claims it as bad debts written off…

CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. (219 ITR 388) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax