CIT v. Kararn Chand Thapar and Ors. (222 ITR 112)

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LOGITRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil

…n certain decisions in the cases of Solid Contenders Ltd vs. DCIT (2009) 178 taxman 192 (Bombay), CIT vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar (1996) 88 taxman 429 (SC), CIT vs., Ramaniyan Homes Private Limited (2016) 68 taxmann.com 289 (Madras) and CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar 222 ITR 112 (SC). 11. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the argument to the effect that the assessee did not furnish the requisite details pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal does not hold water because the order of the Ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the show cause notice dated 7/7/2011 issued by the…

DCIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GREAVES COTTON LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 2575/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mrs. Arti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 115JSection 14A

…of term loan and hence the same is a capital receipt. The AO, however, took the view that the waiver has enriched the assessee and accordingly, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Karamchand Thapper & others (222 ITR 112) and T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344), held that the amount of Rs.192.50 lakhs is assessable u/s 41(1) of the Act. Alternatively, the AO held that the same is taxable u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 11.1. The Ld CIT(A) observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has laid down principles for assessing the waiver of loan as income in th…

GREAVES COTTON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 2482/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mrs. Arti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 115JSection 14A

…of term loan and hence the same is a capital receipt. The AO, however, took the view that the waiver has enriched the assessee and accordingly, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Karamchand Thapper & others (222 ITR 112) and T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344), held that the amount of Rs.192.50 lakhs is assessable u/s 41(1) of the Act. Alternatively, the AO held that the same is taxable u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 11.1. The Ld CIT(A) observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has laid down principles for assessing the waiver of loan as income in th…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPERA HOUSE EXPORTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 41(1)Section 68

…monsense, the AO has rightly taxed the accumulated unclaimed liability as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. In this regard, provisions of section 28(iv) read with section 2(24) of the Act are applicable. 5 2. CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar 222 ITR 112 (SC)[1996] 3.Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CIT 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) (MAG.) [2011] 4. CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. 384 ITR 530 (Madras) [2016] 5. Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) [2009] 6.CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 510 (Mad.)” 4. The learned AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA MOTORS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4822/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Co No.193/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year :2002-03) Ito 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., R.No.552, Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Mumbai 24, Homi Modi Street Fort, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaact2727Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35DSection 41

…ade transaction. .It seems to me to be the commonsense way of dealing with these matters." 10. Regarding the issue of considering this amount as a trading receipt or a capital receipt, AO placed reliance in the case of CIT v/s M/s Karamchand Thapar and Other 222 ITR 112 (SC), wherein it is held that an amount which were not received initially as trading receipts could subsequently become trading receipts and any such surplus amount is income of the assessee. 10.1. In view of the above discussion, AO invoked 41(1) and treated the same as revenue receipt liable to tax. 11. By the impugned order, CIT(A) treated the…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…ver of loan is income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal held that such waiver did not constitute income of the assessee. The Tribunal has also duly considered the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Kararn Chand Thapar and Ors [222 ITR 112] [SC] and held it to be distinguishable. In Prism Cement Ltd vs. JCIT (101 ITD 103)(Mum), the assessee had issued Non-convertible debentures. Some of the debentures were forfeited by the assessee for non-payment of calls and the amount received till that date by the assessee company was credited and set off against expenditure incurred by it. The…

SICOM LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…ver of loan is income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal held that such waiver did not constitute income of the assessee. The Tribunal has also duly considered the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Kararn Chand Thapar and Ors [222 ITR 112] [SC] and held it to be distinguishable. In Prism Cement Ltd vs. JCIT (101 ITD 103)(Mum), the assessee had issued Non-convertible debentures. Some of the debentures were forfeited by the assessee for non-payment of calls and the amount received till that date by the assessee company was credited and set off against expenditure incurred by it. The…

UB AIR P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7506/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Ub Air Pvt. Ltd. D C I T – 5(3) Ewart House, 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Modi Street M.K. Road Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacu1399K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…rawn against the Appellant, relying on the contents of this paragraph of the assessment order. iv. In paragraph 5.4 of the assessment order the Ld. A.O. has relied on the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Karamchand Thapper & Ors [1996] 222 ITR 112 (SC) to draw an adverse inference against the Appellant. The Appellant submits that the decision relied upon by the Ld. A.O. is distinguishable from the facts of the Appellant's case. Hence, the same cannot be relied upon. The Appellant, therefore, submits that no adverse inference can be drawn against him, relying on the contents of this paragra…

CIT vs. ICC INDIA P. LTD

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms in terms

ITA/396/2012HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 28Section 41(1)

…hich the amount is given as subsidy are irrelevant, but the purpose is. 8. In Logitronics (supra) a Bench of this Court had considered the previous rulings in Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (supra) as well as decision in CIT v. Karan Chand Thapar, (1966) 222 ITR 112. In both the decisions the Court of Appeal decision in Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316 (CA) was analysed. This Court in Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. after examining the previous ruling of the Supreme Court observed as follows: - “In the context of waiver of loan amount, what follows from the reading of the aforesaid judgment is that the an…

LOGITRONICS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

ITA/1623/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 2(24)Section 41(1)

…2010 Page 12 of 24 nature of a receipt for income tax purposes were fixed once and for all when receipt was received and that no subsequent operation could change the nature of the receipt. However, in CIT Vs. Karam Chand Thapar [1996] 222 ITR 112, the Supreme Court held that the proposition enunciated in Tattersall (supra) was not absolute and that in given cases, amounts which were not received initially as trading receipts could eventually be regarded as business income by reason of subsequent events. 18. The Court, at the same time, stated emphatically that “the subsequent e…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. THE MOTOR & GENERAL FINANCE LT

ITA/130/2007HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPECIAL BENCHES

…ses Out of an ordinary trade transaction. It seems to me to be the common- sense way of dealing with these matters...." TA 458 of 1984 & other connected matters Page 16 of 24 13. She further submitted that the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Kairan Chand Thapar [222 ITR 112] has held that the conduct of the assessee to take the amount as miscellaneous receipt to the profit & loss account belies the case of the assessee to hold the money in trust. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Jay Engineering Vs. CIT [2009] 311 ITR 200 (Delhi)] by relying on the decision of T.V. Sundaram (supra) has held…

CIT v. Kararn Chand Thapar and Ors.

Judgments citing CIT v. Kararn Chand Thapar and Ors.