CIT v. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd.

324 ITR 100High Court2010#9680 most cited

What is CIT v. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Advances given to employees that become unrecoverable are treated as a business loss deductible under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Ex-gratia payments to staff can also be deductible under Section 37(1).

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd. · Section 28 · Section 37(1) · unrecoverable advances · business loss · ex-gratia payment · employee advances

Sections most often in play

Section 10(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 270ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd.

The Louis Berger Group Inc, Gugaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incomne Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2630/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Louis Berger Group Inc, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 3, Surinder Jakhir Dcit/Acit, International Bhawan, Sector-32, Gurgaon Taxation, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacl4067F

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vazanta, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ad been employed by the assessee-company and if they became unrecoverable, it would clearly be treated as business loss. Law on this aspect stands crystallized by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Maina Ore Transport (P) Ltd., [2010] 324 ITR 100. 14. Thus, the AO was not correct in holding that this was not allowable even under Section 28 of the Act, as it does not spring directly from carrying on of the business and is not incidental thereto.” In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the 16. judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, the Ground Nos. 7 and 8 rai…

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…f is deductible u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : “24. Ground No. 4 challenges the disallowan…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 332/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Ms. Abarna, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 8D(2)(i)Section 8D(2)(iii)

…ff is deductible u/s.37(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : 12 I.T.A. Nos.2762 & 2765/Chny/2017 & 33…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy

ITA 2765/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Ms. Abarna, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 8D(2)(i)Section 8D(2)(iii)

…ff is deductible u/s.37(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : 12 I.T.A. Nos.2762 & 2765/Chny/2017 & 33…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

ITA 2762/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan & Ms. Abarna, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 8D(2)(i)Section 8D(2)(iii)

…ff is deductible u/s.37(1) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under: 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : 12 I.T.A. Nos.2762 & 2765/Chny/2017 & 33…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…find merit in the Revenue’s appeal, therefore, the corresponding grounds are dismissed . 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of :-18-: & 54/Chny/2018 the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : “24. Ground No.4…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 3197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…find merit in the Revenue’s appeal, therefore, the corresponding grounds are dismissed . 16. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ex-gratia payment following the decision of the CIT vs Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd., 324 ITR 100 (Bom) and Kumaran Mills Ltd vs CIT (2000) 241 ITR 564 (Mad) which are distinguishable and not applicable to this case. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of :-18-: & 54/Chny/2018 the Ld. CIT(A) and relied on this tribunal decision in its case in 72 ITR (Trib) 26 (Chennai), the relevant portion is extracted as under : “24. Ground No.4…

Tbwa Anthem Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1541/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…. CIT(A) in his impugned orders are all in favour of the assessee which is evident from the following judicial decisions as quoted in para 5:- “5. This view is supported by the following judicial decisions :- (1) CIT vs. Maina Ore Transport P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 100 (Bom) The object of the proviso to section 36(1)(ii)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to encourage the management to pay bonus in excess of what is statutorily bound to be paid to the employees provided the payment is justifiable as a "reasonable payment”. The assessee claimed deduction In respect of the ex gratia payment made to its employees which…

Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1307/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Knight Riders Sports Acit, Central Circle-29, Private Limited, Deepvan बिधम/ Mumbai. Anand Vihar Society, 20Th Vs. Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400 052 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aadck3118M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…an expenditure, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Anr (2004) 266 ITR 63 (Mad) and the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Maina Ore Transport (2008) 324 ITR 100 (Bom). P a g e | 55 ITA No.1307/Mum/2013 AY: 2009-10 Knight Riders Sports Private Limited Vs. ACIT-Central Circle-29 37. The ld. A.R further adverting to the adhoc disallowance of an expenditure of Rs.1,08,33,592/- by the A.O, which thereafter had been sustained by the CIT(A), viz. (i) boarding and lodging expenses; and (ii) food and nutrition e…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkat, Kolkata vs. M/S. Stewart & Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1858/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

…been employed by the assessee company and if they became irrecoverable, it would clearly be treated as business loss. Law on this aspect stands crystallized by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 100.” 15. Having heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee as the proposition canvassed by the Ld. AR for the assessee are supported by various judgments Management Ltd...AY. 2011-12 cited by him supra and the facts narrated by him abov…

Stewart and Mackertich Wealth Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee`s ground No

ITA 1820/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 73

…been employed by the assessee company and if they became irrecoverable, it would clearly be treated as business loss. Law on this aspect stands crystallized by the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd. 324 ITR 100.” 15. Having heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee as the proposition canvassed by the Ld. AR for the assessee are supported by various judgments Management Ltd...AY. 2011-12 cited by him supra and the facts narrated by him abov…

CIT v. Maina Ore Transport Pvt. Ltd. (324 ITR 100) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax