CIT v. Manmohan Das

59 ITR 699Supreme Court of India1966#2458 most cited

What is CIT v. Manmohan Das authority for?

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manmohan Das · 59 ITR 699 · carry forward and set off of losses · eligibility for loss set-off · determination year for losses · Assessing Officer powers losses · Section 74 Income Tax Act · capital losses carry forward · DTAA loss benefits · statutory right carry forward losses

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 74Section 10(38)Section 270ASection 45Section 90(2)Section 111ASection 112
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 70(2)section 115adsection 74dtaa benefitsection 2(45)section 66treaty benefitssection 111asection 111section 112aset off of lossessection 70

Judgments citing CIT v. Manmohan Das

Pulpatta Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. The ITO Ward-2, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 836/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sh.K. Rishal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.836/Coch/2022: Asst.Year:2014-2015 Pulpatta Service Co-operative The Income Tax Officer Bank Limited, Pulpatta Post Ward - 2 vs. Malappuram – 676 123. Tirur. [PAN: AACAP2318K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh.K. Rishal, Adv. Respondent by:Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Date of Date of Hearing : 08.08.2023 Pronouncement: 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the appellate order dated 21.5.2022 confirming it’s assessment under section…

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

…of brought forward losses, learned counsel submitted, losses determined and brought forward from earlier years cannot be disallowed in the current years. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: i CIT Vs Manmohan Das (Deceased), (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) ii Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs. ITO (2008) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) 9. As regards the finding of the Assessing Officer that the provision for carry forward and set off of losses are not applicable to a non-resident assessee, learned counsel submitted, section 71 and 72 of the Act, which provide for set off and carry forward of losses refers to assessee an…

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

…of brought forward losses, learned counsel submitted, losses determined and brought forward from earlier years cannot be disallowed in the current years. For this proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: i CIT Vs Manmohan Das (Deceased), (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) ii Suraj Bhan Bajaj Vs. ITO (2008) 21 SOT 22 (Delhi) 9. As regards the finding of the Assessing Officer that the provision for carry forward and set off of losses are not applicable to a non-resident assessee, learned counsel submitted, section 71 and 72 of the Act, which provide for set off and carry forward of losses refers to assessee an…

Kings Infra Ventures Ltd, Thevara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/COCH/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainkings Infra Ventures Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of A-1, 1St Floor, Atria Apartment Income Tax, Opp. Gurudwara Temple Vs. Circle - 1(2) Perumanur Road Kochi Thevara, Kochi [Pan:Aaccv3411D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…tment to the returned income) is caused, and not the year for which the finding in respect thereof is made, he would, while agreeing, seek time to locate the said decision/s,whereupon he would place on record the decision in CIT v. Manmohan Das (Decd.) [1965] 59 ITR 699 (SC). 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 The short question that arises in the instant case is if the appellate authority, in directing the AO to consider reopening the assessment for years other than the current assessment year, i.e., the years impacted by the assessee’s claim of unabsorbed depreciation, being…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…DTAA on capital gains, capital losses are also exempt. When the issue reached before the Tribunal, the Coordinate Bench placing reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd., 249 ITR 517 (SC) and CIT vs. Manmohan Das 59 ITR 699(SC) and also after considering CBDT Circular No.22 of 1944 dated 29/07/1944 held that the assessee is justified in claiming carry forward of brought forward losses of the earlier years to the subsequent years and at the same time upheld assessee’s claim of capital gains as exempt under the provisions of Article -13 of the DTAA. Thus, the Tribunal…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR
Section 263

…DTAA on capital gains, capital losses are also exempt. When the issue reached before the Tribunal, the Coordinate Bench placing reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd., 249 ITR 517 (SC) and CIT vs. Manmohan Das 59 ITR 699(SC) and also after considering CBDT Circular No.22 of 1944 dated 29/07/1944 held that the assessee is justified in claiming carry forward of brought forward losses of the earlier years to the subsequent years and at the same time upheld assessee’s claim of capital gains as exempt under the provisions of Article -13 of the DTAA. Thus, the Tribunal…

Tikona Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1117/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1117/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tikona Trust बिधम/ Assistant Director Of 3A, 3Rd Floor Corpora, Lbs Marg Income Tax, Cpc Vs. Bhandup West, Cpc, Bangaluru, Mumbai-400078 Karnataka- 560500

For Appellant: Shri .Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 234BSection 41Section 41(1)

…ave any binding force on the AO who is taking the decision for the assessment year in which the set-off for the said loss is claimed. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manmohan Das (Deceased) [1966] 59 ITR 699 (SC). In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the contention of the assessee that the set-off of brought forward business losses cannot be disallowed in the instant assessment year when they were allowed carry forward in the Intimation u/s 143(1) for the earlier A.Y 20171-18 is held to be unsustainable in law. 16. Further, it is n…

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.P.Morgan Indian Investment Company Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue becomes infructuous as dismissed

ITA 2382/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2382/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-3(1)(1), M/S J. P. Morgan India R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air Investment Company India Building, Nariman Mauritius Limited, बनाम/ Point, Mumbai-400 021 C/O- Srb & Associates Llp, Vs. 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacf0626J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 41/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S J. P. Morgan India Acit-3(1)(1), Investment Company R. No. 1628, 16Th Floor, Air India Mauritius Limited, Building, Nariman Point, बनाम/ C/O- Srb & Associates Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 18.05.2022 & 23.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anish Thacker, Ld. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144C

…DTAA. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR first of all submitted that loss has to be determined first which here has to be determined. In support he strongly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manmohan Das (deceased) (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- The ITO has under section 24 (3) to notify to the assessee the amount of loss as computed by him, If it is established in the course of assessment of the total income that the assessee has suffered loss of profits. Section 24(2) confers a statutory right (subject to certain condition which are not material) upo…

Cargo Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3612/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 35A

…t question was whether the observations about the eligibility of loss being carried forward does indeed affect the interests of the assessee in any manner inasmuch as, in the light of Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Manmohan Das [(1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC)], the eligibility for set-off has to be adjudicated upon by the Assessing Officer dealing with the assessment year in which set-off is claimed and not in the year in which the loss sought to be adjusted is incurred. Our second question was whether the issue of insufficient inquiries before acceptance of the claim for a loss from the specified…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Imerys Ceramics India Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 663/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. Imerys Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaacj 7424Q ..Respondent. Appellant By : Smt. N. Esther. (D.R.) Respondent By : Shri Ravi Bharadwaj. Date Of Hearing : 2.6.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2021. O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.05.01.2018 Passed In Case No. 0238/Cit(A)-8/Hyd/2016-17 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Smt. N. Esther. (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 24(3)

…at the Assessing Officer herein; while computing the assessee's claim of 115JB MAT, could not be questioned correctness of the brought forward figure from earlier assessment years as held in hon'ble apex court land mark decision in CIT Vs. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC); their lordship held that “ a decision recorded by the ITO to compute the loss in the previous year u/s. 24(3) that the loss cannot be set off against any of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee”. The very analogy applies in case of the so called Assessing Officer dealing with subsequent years assessment as well wherein he could…

Bbel-Mipl Joint Venture., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1259/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40Section 40A(2)

…iture claim’s disallowance could be restricted to ‘zero’ income therein resulting in ‘loss’ figures as well. While holding so, it would not be out of context altogether if we refer to hon’ble apex court’s larger bench decision in CIT Vs. Manmohan Das (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC) that an Assessing Officer arriving at loss figure cannot restrict the same from being carried forward in earlier year since it is for the assessing authority of the subsequent year to deal with such an issue and if at all the former of them decides the same in such a manner, it is not binding on the assessee in the said subsequent year. We a…

Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/303/2013HC Karnataka12 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 133ASection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…as been placed on decisions in ‘CHAMBER OF INCOME-TAX CONSULTANTS VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES’, (1994) 75 TAXMAN 669 (BOMBAY), ‘DR. DEVENDRA M SURTI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’, (1969) 1 SCR 235, ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. MANMOHAN DAS’, (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC), ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. BHAGWAN BROKER AGENCY’, (1993) 70 TAXMAN 453 (RAJASTHAN), ‘COMMISSIONEROF INCOME- 14 TAX VS, LALLUBHAI NAGARDAS & SONS’, (1993) 204 ITR 93 (CALCUTTA), ‘STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS’, (1960) 2 SCR 866, ‘DR.P.VADAMALAYAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (1…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…he same cannot be impediment for assessing the income under the correct provisions of the law. In support, he strongly relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) [1966] 59 ITR 699, wherein it was held that it is for the ITO of the subsequent year to determine whether the loss of I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 14 the previous year may be set off against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computes the loss in the previous year that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent yea…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…he same cannot be impediment for assessing the income under the correct provisions of the law. In support, he strongly relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) [1966] 59 ITR 699, wherein it was held that it is for the ITO of the subsequent year to determine whether the loss of I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017 14 the previous year may be set off against the profits of that year. A decision recorded by the ITO who computes the loss in the previous year that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent yea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) - 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Agarwal Textiles Industries P. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaca3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Agarwal Textiles Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Anandi Varma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AR
Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), M/s Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACA3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Agarwal Textiles DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industri…

ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata vs. Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2237/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -vs- Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 96/Kol/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2011-12 Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. C…

ITO 23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ikp Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5522/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Aarju GarodiaFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Tilak
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e’ within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Before going to the reasoning prevailing with the CIT(A) to delete the penalty, we may briefly touch upon the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Manmohan Das, 59 ITR 699 (SC) dealing with carry forward and set-off of losses in a subsequent year. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether the loss in any year may be carried forward to the following year and set-off against the profit and gains of the subsequent year is an issue which is required to be determined by the Assessing Officer who deals with the assessment…

Instant Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7364/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhita Nos.6527/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy Cit Central Circle 6(3)(1), Instant Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Krishna House, Raghuvanshi Mill Vs. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 79

…ferred to the decision of co-ordinate Bench dated 07.09.2017 in the case of Khajrana Ganesh Properties Private Limited (ITA No.2629/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2010- 11), wherein by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Das (Deceased) 59 ITR 699, such plea of the assessee has been upheld. 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, the learned DR has merely reiterated the stand of the lower authorities. 5. After having carefully considered the rival submissions, we find that the limited plea of the assessee before us is to the effect that the dispute regarding the denial of the carry forward…

DCIT Cir. 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Instant Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhita Nos.6527/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy Cit Central Circle 6(3)(1), Instant Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Krishna House, Raghuvanshi Mill Vs. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 79

…ferred to the decision of co-ordinate Bench dated 07.09.2017 in the case of Khajrana Ganesh Properties Private Limited (ITA No.2629/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2010- 11), wherein by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Das (Deceased) 59 ITR 699, such plea of the assessee has been upheld. 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, the learned DR has merely reiterated the stand of the lower authorities. 5. After having carefully considered the rival submissions, we find that the limited plea of the assessee before us is to the effect that the dispute regarding the denial of the carry forward…

DCIT TDS 1(2), Mumbai vs. Fino Fintech Foundation, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year

ITA 4482/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4482/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit (Tds)-1(2), Vs. M/S Fino Fintech Foundation, Room No. 803, Tarun Bharat, Plot No. 38/39, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Sector No. 30, Charni Road (W), Near Sanpada Railway Station, Mumbai - 400002 Navi Mumbai - 400075 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf1125D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4483/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & It The Dcit (Tds)-1(2), Vs. M/S Fino Paytech Ltd., Room No. 803, Tarun Bharat, Plot No. 38/39, K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Sector No. 30, Charni Road (W), Near Sanpada Railway Station, Mumbai - 400002 Navi Mumbai - 400075 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf9869M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 25

…e parties. The demand raised by the AO for the difference of tax between 194C and 194J u/s 201(1)and 201 (1A) is deleted. Ground is Allowed.” 7. We notice that the assessee has relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Manmohan Das 59 ITR 699 (SC), Indian Medication Association vs. P Shantha AIR 1996 SC 550, Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. International cleaning and Shipping Agency 241 ITR 172 (Mad) and the decision rendered by the ITAT Bench, Pune in Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. ITO 48 SOT 643 taxmann.com 163 (Pune Tribl), during the appellate proceedings before the Ld…