CIT v. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd.

333 ITR 254Reported decision#17758 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd.

S.K. SILKS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3616/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3616/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./351/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.K. Silks Addl Cit, -14 (3) 9, Chatrabhuj House, 285 Princess Street Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point,Mumbai. Pan:Aaafs 1035 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अ…

S.K. SILKS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

ITA 351/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3616/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./351/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.K. Silks Addl Cit, -14 (3) 9, Chatrabhuj House, 285 Princess Street Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point,Mumbai. Pan:Aaafs 1035 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अ…

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 24/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…f Income Tax (Appeals) has misconceived the facts :- 16 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. that the amount written off as bad debts were there is no element of debt except investments and relied on the decision of CIT vs. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd 333 ITR 254 and referred to the clause 13, of report were opinion expressed by the statutory Auditors as under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs.…

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 23/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…f Income Tax (Appeals) has misconceived the facts :- 16 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. that the amount written off as bad debts were there is no element of debt except investments and relied on the decision of CIT vs. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd 333 ITR 254 and referred to the clause 13, of report were opinion expressed by the statutory Auditors as under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs.…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 144/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…f Income Tax (Appeals) has misconceived the facts :- 16 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. that the amount written off as bad debts were there is no element of debt except investments and relied on the decision of CIT vs. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd 333 ITR 254 and referred to the clause 13, of report were opinion expressed by the statutory Auditors as under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs.…

CIT v. Lal Woolen and Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (333 ITR 254) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax