CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd.

55 ITR 707Supreme Court of India1965#1522 most cited
75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. · 55 ITR 707 SC · Section 37 Income-tax Act · Section 10(2)(xv) 1922 Act · business expenditure deductibility · proximate nexus business · business expediency test · legal expenses · expenditure prohibited by law · Section 132 search and seizure · Section 153A proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 143(3)Section 250Section 132Section 144Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 153cofproximate nexussection 10(2)(xv)section 153a proceedingssection 10(2)section 36(2)explanation to section 37business expediencylegal expensesprohibited by lawsection 158bdsection 269s

Judgments citing CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd.

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19 (1) & (2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…eference can also be taken from the following decisions of various courts on this issue:- • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genui…

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…eference can also be taken from the following decisions of various courts on this issue:- • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genui…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

…eference can also be taken from the following decisions of various courts on this issue:- • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707, CIT Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200 • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lai Vs. CIT (SC) 86 ITR 439, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 63 ITR 57, Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634. • Income tax authorities can examine reasonableness and genui…

Think Works Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7986/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Think Works Pvt. Ltd., Acit Vs. M-130, Ff, Gk Enclave-2, Circle 25(1), New Delhi. Room No. 192-A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaecb2519E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…I.T.A.No.7986/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7986/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Think Works Pvt. Ltd., ACIT Vs. M-130, FF, GK Enclave-2, Circle 25(1), New Delhi. Room No. 192-A, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. PAN No. AAECB2519E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Satish Singh, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri M. Barnwal, CIT DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.02.2023 24.03.2…

L and T Mhps Turbine Generatiors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4766/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

…ng section and addition on account of provisioning is not justified. 28. Assessing Officer relied in the following case laws which are not relevant for the issue under consideration and is completely out of context: - i. In Nainital Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) 62 ITR 638 (SC), one of the patrons of the assessee had pledged certain jewellery with the bank against which loan was taken by them. Certain dacoits stole the jewellery of the patron on July 11, 1951. In regard to the loss of the jewellery, the bank settled the claim of the patron and the difference was paid by the bank to the patron. In view of these facts…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…cannot therefore be allowed. This is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - • Every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (SC) 55 ITR 707; CITVs Textool Co. Ltd. (Mad) 135 ITR 200. • Taxing authorities have right to consider whether expenditure was excessive. Lakshminarayan Madan Lal Vs CIT(SC) 86 ITR 439; Swadeshi Cotton Mills ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 32 of 41 Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 63 1TR 57; Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 73 ITR 6…

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

…w cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure. 20.12 Ld. DRP relied on the following case laws while issuing the directions to the Learned AO: - Eimco KCP Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 659 (SC); - Indian Mollasses Co. Pvt Ltd vs CIT 37 ITR 66; - CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd 62 ITR 638 20.13 After considering the above points, DRP agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Learned AO and rejected the objections raised by the Appellant against the proposed adjustment. c) Appellant’s Arguments: 20.14 In connection with the above adjustment made by the Learned AO, the Company places its reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional…

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Anand vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Anand Circle Anandsojitra Road Anand. Vallabhvidyanagar 388 120 Pan : Aaace4644D 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shria.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: ShriA.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

…y the assessee as a result of the misappropriation by the agent was one which was incidental to the carrying on of the business and, therefore, deductible in computing the profits of the assessee under s. 10(1) of the Act. In CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) : TC14R.285 the Supreme Court observed : 14 "Under s. 10(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, the trading loss of a business is deductible in computing the profit earned by the business. But every loss is not so deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. Whether loss is incide…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34.…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34.…

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1091/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 1091/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(2), B-25, Infocity, Sector-43, New Delhi-110002 Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1013F Assessee By : Sh. Atul Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. K. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. K. Das, Sr. DR

…mputed after deducting losses and expenditure incurred for the purposes of business unless such losses or expenditure are expressly, or by necessary implication, disallowed by the Act.” 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd., 55 ITR 707 (SC) wherein it was held that “under section 28, the trading loss of a business is deductible in computing the profits earned by a business. However, everu loss is not deductible unless it is incurred in carruing out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operation. Whether loss is incidental to the operation of a business or not,…

Avijit Dewanjee, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3249/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250(4)

…g on the business and there was direct and proximate connection and nexus between the loss and the business the same has to be allowed as a deduction: • CIT v. Smt. Pukhraj Wati Bubber [2007] 199 Taxation 107 (Punj. & Har.) • CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC). • Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT, AP [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC), • Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 16. It was further submitted that even CBDT in its Circulars No.25 of 1939 and Circular No. 13 of 1944 has instructed the assessing officers that losses arising due to embezzlement by employees or due to neglige…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…imilar issue was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 210 of 2003, 609, 611, 772, 1134 of 2005 & Oths. vide judgement dated 20.03.2019. Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- 31. “In CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 638 (ill the Assessee bank had settled the claims of those who had pledged their jewellery with the Bank which was stolen by dacoits. The question was whether such payments could be allowed as business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922? It was acknowledged that: "In choosing to compensate its constituents for the l…

Bcl Securities Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…an amount in advance out of the price; there was no element of a capital investment in making the advance and the loss incurred by the assessee was, therefore, a loss on the revenue side and was deductible.”[Emphasis given] • CIT vs. National Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) I.T.A. No.1615/DEL/2020 85 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that u/s. 10(1) of 1922 Act (sec. 28 of 1961 Act), the trading loss of a business is deductible in computing the profits earned by a business. However, every loss is not deductible unless it is incurred in carrying out the operation of the business and is incidental to the operat…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ent of compensation would not come in the wav of the assessee treating such payment as 'revenue expenditure.' [Para 29] Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in Shahzada Nand & Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) to the case in hand, the plausible conclusion is that the compensation paid by the assessee to the allottees of the commercial spaces for the surrender of their rights therein cannot be said to be disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for 'extraneous considerations'. [Para 33] In the instant case, the assessee has a plau…