CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.

46 ITR 649Supreme Court of India1962#875 most cited

What is CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. authority for?

When advances extended in the normal course of business operations become irrecoverable and are written off, these amounts are allowable as a business loss or revenue expenditure.

120

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. · 46 ITR 649 · Section 37(1) · Section 36(1)(vii) · business loss · advances written off · irrecoverable advances · revenue expenditure · allowable deduction · business expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 32Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 115JBSection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 90aconstruction peunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomeproject completion methodsection 80cforeign tax creditroyalty incomewithholding taxdisallowance of interest expendituresection 139(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Cochin vs. Appollo Tyres Ltd

ITA/172/2013HC Kerala29 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

…to be disallowed as 'capital loss' and the advances amounting to Rs.2,32,93,575/- given for acquisition of revenue items subsequently written off are held as allowable under Section 37 of the Act as 'current expenses'. 2 (1974) 96 ITR 568 (J&K) 3 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) 4 (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC) I.T.A. No.172/2013 -6- 5.1 The present question deals with the view taken by the Tribunal that the claim of assessee though is not permissible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, still the same is admissible under Section 37 of the Act. The contention of Revenue is that the specific provision applicable…

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/26/2013HC Kerala29 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

…e Supreme Court in CIT v. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd2. We keep in perspective the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mysore Sugar Company Ltd case and also the circumstances in the case on hand. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of 2 (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC) I.T.A. No.26/2013 -19- the Tribunal while considering the writing off bad debts from advances made towards capital asset acquisition of the assessee. The appeal filed by the Revenue, insofar as it related to revenue expenditure was dismissed and we do not see any other reason now while applying the same test to accept the claim of the ass…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR
Section 28

…ee. Therefore, the trading loss of a business is deductible in computing profits earned by the business even though there is no specific provision for allowance thereof. 22. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd [1962] 46 ITR 649 (Supreme Court) laid down the principles for allowance of loss incidental to business as under: “The tax under the head "Business" is payable under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. That section provides by sub-section (1) that the tax shall be payable by an appellant under the head "Profits and gains of business, etc." in respect of the profits…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR
Section 28

…ee. Therefore, the trading loss of a business is deductible in computing profits earned by the business even though there is no specific provision for allowance thereof. 22. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd [1962] 46 ITR 649 (Supreme Court) laid down the principles for allowance of loss incidental to business as under: “The tax under the head "Business" is payable under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. That section provides by sub-section (1) that the tax shall be payable by an appellant under the head "Profits and gains of business, etc." in respect of the profits…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Abb Ltd

In the result, both the substantial questions

ITA/134/2011HC Karnataka09 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 46(2)

…the assessee to its sister concern should have treated as business loss. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in the cases of ‘BADRIDAS DAGA VS. CIT’, (1958) 46 ITR 10 (SC), ‘ CIT VS. MYSORE SUGAR CO. LTD.’, (1962) 46 ITR 649 (SC), ‘ S.A.BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT’, (2007) 158 TAXMAN 74 (SC), ‘ T.R.F. LTD. VS. CIT’, (2010) 190 TAXMAN 391 (SC), ‘HARSHAD J.CHOKSI VS. CIT’, (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 567 (BOM.), ‘ CIT VS. JAYKRISHNA HARIVALLABHDAS (1998) 231 108 (GUJ.). It is also urged that the tribunal has 11 rightly treated the loss as capital loss by placi…

M/S. Global One India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1980/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Vs Dcit, M/S. Global One India Pvt. Ltd., Dso 601-603, 607-608, Circle – 12(1), 6Th Floor, Dlf South Court, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 (Pan : Aabcg 2558 B) (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Shri Kanchan Kaushal, C.A. Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit - D.R. Date Of Hearing 03.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2019

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 41(1)Section 80

…1 I.T.A No. 1980/Del/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1980/Del/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Vs DCIT, M/s. Global One India Pvt. Ltd., DSO 601-603, 607-608, Circle – 12(1), 6th Floor, DLF South Court, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 (PAN : AABCG 2558 B) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Shri Kanchan Kaushal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, CIT - D.R. Date of Hearing 03.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal…

M/S. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2687/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14A

…y would be ready in a year or so would not make any difference. 13. We are in agreement with Shri Dastur that the principles in this regard are laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in CIT v. M/s. National Stock Exchange Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649. The relevant observations in this case have already been noted by us earlier in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT . Apart from the fact that this court had already held that the length of the lease agreement is not very material for the purpose of determining the nature of the expenditure incurred on lease agreements, the Supreme Court has clearly laid…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 946/RJT/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2019AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P. M. Maharshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he appellant in the ordinary course of business and incidental thereto and was therefore a trading loss allowable under section 28 itself. Appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in the case of CIT V Mysore Sugar Co. ltd 46 ITR 649 (SC), in the case company has advanced money to sugarcane growers for purchase of sugarcane and when they are unable to supply sugarcane. The amount was written off and claimed as trading loss and same was allowed. Therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon Supreme court I delete the disallowance made in case of following advances writte…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Cylinders Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7337/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Cylinders Pvt. Income Tax- 3(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor 181, Maker Tower, Aayakar Bhavan “E”, Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccr8653D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ed The crucial arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel of the assessee in case of IBM World Trade Corporation reported in 186 ITR 412 (Bom) were as under:- “5. Lastly, Shri Dastur referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 649, and relied upon the following observations at page 653 : "To find out whether an expenditure is on the capital account or on revenue, one must consider the expenditure in relation to the business. Since all payments reduce capital in the ultimate analysis, one is apt to consider a loss as amounting to a loss of capital. But this is not true of al…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…ake a lengthy litigation for recovering the small amounts. In our opinion, therefore, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is not justified.” (Emphasis supplied) Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.: 46 ITR 549 (SC)  CIT v. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd.: 343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77…

M/S Pradhan Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Dewas vs. The ACIT 1(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 934/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…r referring to the following judicial pronouncements submitted that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act assessee is fully eligible for claim of deduction in respect of the bad debts written off by it:- i) CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 649 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii) Minda HUF Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 25 CCH 0179 (Del Trib) Pradhan Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITANos.933 &934/Ind/2016 iii) ITO vs. Bombay Film Lab. Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 01 CCH 3302 (Mum Trib) 8. Ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that in case the amount is recovered, the same shall be offered to tax in the yea…

M/S Pradhan Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Dewas vs. The ACIT 1(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for A

ITA 933/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…r referring to the following judicial pronouncements submitted that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act assessee is fully eligible for claim of deduction in respect of the bad debts written off by it:- i) CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 649 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii) Minda HUF Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 25 CCH 0179 (Del Trib) Pradhan Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITANos.933 &934/Ind/2016 iii) ITO vs. Bombay Film Lab. Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 01 CCH 3302 (Mum Trib) 8. Ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted that in case the amount is recovered, the same shall be offered to tax in the yea…

M/S Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1510/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Nortel Networks India Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-18(2), New Delhi C-227, Ground Floor, Near Garden Of Five Senses, Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aabcn1428B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of the Act. In support of her contention that there are 6 two opinion available on whether the expenditure in question could be considered as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, she relied on the following decisions: 1. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. (SC), 46 ITR 649 2. IBM World Trade Corporation Vs. CIT (Bom. HC), 186 ITR 412 3. Inden Biselers (Mad. HC), 181 ITR 69 4. Narandas Mathuradas & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom. HC), 35 ITR 460 5. Jhalani and Company Vs. CIT (Del. ITAT), 77 ITD 44 7.2 Further, in support of her claim that, no penalty could be levied where assessee discloses all the transactions, she relied on fo…

The Dy CIT, C-2, Indore vs. M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 834/IND/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Acit (Central)-Ii, M/S Keti Sangam Indore Vs. Infrastructure Ltd, 15/31 Vidhyyadeep, Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aadck0129Q Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulasiyan & Amitesh Jain, Cas Date Of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…Keti Sangam Infrastructure Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT (Central)-II, M/s Keti Sangam Indore Vs. Infrastructure Ltd, 15/31 Vidhyyadeep, Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN AADCK0129Q Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Ajay Tulasiyan & Amitesh Jain, CAs Date of Hearing 09.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.05.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is filed at the instance…

Sheetal G Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 36, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.1360/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.1360/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sheetal G Desai……........................………………………………Appellant [PAN : ADOPD 0128 M] Vs. ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata....................................................……… Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCA, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. DR, Addl.CIT, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 9th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : May 10th…