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.

Control Techniques India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 226/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Ashish Tripathi, IRS, JCIT
Section 36(1)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 226/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012 M/s. Control Techniques India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of P. Ltd, Income Tax, 117B, Developed Plots Estate, Corporate Circle 1(2) Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai 600 096. [PAN AAACC 1343B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. K.B.Muralidharan, C.A. अपीलाथ" क…

M/S Canara Housing Development Company, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

…everal years and therefore inspires and enhance the customers of the assessee which is necessary for the purpose of business. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Limited 62 ITR 638. 7. As regards the third objection of the Assessing Officer that the liability has not crystallized in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the learned Authorised Representative has asserted that the claim of deduction is based on the principle of prudence and conservatism. He has contended that the assessee fail…

Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3494/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. Cit 1St Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla Assessee By: Shri F.V. Irani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt. 17.03.2010 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,A Share Broker, Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Its Total Income Of Rs.390.03 Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao) Completed Assessment On 30. 03.2009,Determining Its Income At Rs.401.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…3494/M/10(07-08) Kotak Securities Ltd. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 3494/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 वष" Kotak Securities Limited Addl. CIT 1st Floor, Bakthawar Range-4(3), Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 229 Nariman Point,Mumbai-40…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ss loss. The assessee has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it is held that embezzlement of funds by wrong/fraudulent deals are allowable as deduction: (a) Badrinath Daga v. CIT[1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) . (b) CIT v. Nainital Bank [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC) (c) Indian Insurance Banking corporation limited v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 123 (Ker) (d) Ramachandra Shivnarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC). In Badrinath Daga v. CIT [1958J 34 ITR 10(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the question whether amount lost through embezzlement by an employee is a trading loss which could be deducted in compu…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…negligence by an employee, but which is incidental to the carrying of the business is allowed as business loss. In support of this preposition the appellant relied on the following cases: • Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) • ClT vs. Nainital bank (55 ITR 707) (SC) • G.G:Dandekar machine Works Ltd. Vs. ClT (202 ITR 161) (Born) • Pandyan Builders vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (45 TTJ 524) (Mad) • Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (78 ITD 175) (CQ)) (TM) • Kothari & Sons vs. ClT (1966) (61 ITR 23) (Mad.) 5.10 The appellant also relied on CBDT’s Circular No.35-D(XLVII- 20)[F.No.10/48/65-IT-)…

M/S Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

…n specified under Section 36(2) of the Act. He has also relied upon the following judgments : 40 IT(TP)A No.1364/Bang/2011 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. a) CIT Vs. T. Veerabhadra Rao & K. Koteswara Rao & Co. 155 ITR 152 (SC). b) CIT Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC). 11.3 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that once the debts were transferred being part of the slump sale then the claim of the assessee is not allowable as it will be a capital loss being reduction of consideration of slump sale. Even the capital loss of the amount can be allowed only when the amoun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the Ld. D.R., we agree with the submissions advanced by Ld. A.R. that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. reported in 55 ITR 707 was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amount recoverable from the hirer, do constitute stock in trade. Relevant paras from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (supra) of the decision are reproduced herein below: “It is settled law, and indeed…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the Ld. D.R., we agree with the submissions advanced by Ld. A.R. that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. reported in 55 ITR 707 was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amount recoverable from the hirer, do constitute stock in trade. Relevant paras from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (supra) of the decision are reproduced herein below: “It is settled law, and indeed…

The ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4107/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 143(3)

…ACE Global Market. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that as a commercial expediency if assessee bears a loss, it has to be allowed as deduction. For this proposition, he places reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Naintal Bank Ltd. (62 ITR 638) 2. CIT Vs Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd (214 ITR 01) 3. SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No. 4001/M/02 dated 27.6.2007. 5.10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to page 60 & 67 of the Paper book the computation of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 submits that during the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has received…

M/S. J B Boda & Co Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT CC 17 & 28, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4022/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4022/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, बनाम/ Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maker Bhavan, Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4107/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 The Acit, Cc-17 & 28, M/S. J.B. Boda & Co. Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maker Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai 1, Sir V.T. Marg, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 143(3)

…ACE Global Market. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that as a commercial expediency if assessee bears a loss, it has to be allowed as deduction. For this proposition, he places reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs Naintal Bank Ltd. (62 ITR 638) 2. CIT Vs Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd (214 ITR 01) 3. SBI Funds Management Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No. 4001/M/02 dated 27.6.2007. 5.10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to page 60 & 67 of the Paper book the computation of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 submits that during the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has received…

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…vided (i) the losses are of a non-capital nature and. (ii) they are not merely connected with the trade but are incidental to the trade itself. These principles were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Badridas Daga vs CIT (34 ITR 10), CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd. (55 ITR 707) and Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs CIT (111 ITR 263). As regards the deductibility of irrecoverable advances as business loss under section 28, the ld. AR relied 20 ITA No.5388 & 2685/Del./2009 on the following judicial precedents to support that advances which have become irrecoverable, given in the course of carrying on business are an allowable d…

The ADIT (I.T)3(1) vs. M/S. Honkong & Shanghani Banking Corpn. Ltd

In the result, ITA Nos.2519 and 2520/Mum/2004 by revenue stand dismissed, ITA No

ITA 2519/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2519 & 2520/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1999-2000 & 2000-01) M/S Hongkong & Shanghani Asstt.Direrctor Of Income Tax बनाम/ Banking Corporation Ltd., (International Taxation)-3(1), Vs. 52/60, M G Road, 136, Scindia House, Mumbai-400001 N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…iness loss and should be allowed as business loss. Therefore, the AO was not justified in disallowing this payment as business loss. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Nainital Bank Ltd (1966) 62 ITR 638(SC). 76. The ld.Counsel/ AR submitted that in the case of Nainital Bank Ltd, the large number of currency notes and jewellery were stolen and the payment of these assets were made by the bank to the constituent and the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the claim of the assessee being loss incurred by the assessee as business expenditure. He, therefor…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Kokivenkateswara Reddy AND others

ITTA/210/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…liability has crystallised during the previous year. Reliance is placed in support of this submission on the decisions in CIT -vs- Indian Overseas Bank, 151 ITR 446, Indian Molasses Company -vs- CIT, 37 ITR 66 (SC), CIT -vs- Nainital Bank Ltd., 62 ITR 638, CIT -vs- Kamini Metal and Alloys, 208 ITR 1017 (Bombay), CIT -vs- Tata Iron and Steel Company, 231 ITR 285 (SC). 6 O b h lf f h h b i i d 2007:DHC:406 (a) In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills followed by this Court in IFFCO and Paper Products, the question of increase in liability on capital account as a…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…liability has crystallised during the previous year. Reliance is placed in support of this submission on the decisions in CIT -vs- Indian Overseas Bank, 151 ITR 446, Indian Molasses Company -vs- CIT, 37 ITR 66 (SC), CIT -vs- Nainital Bank Ltd., 62 ITR 638, CIT -vs- Kamini Metal and Alloys, 208 ITR 1017 (Bombay), CIT -vs- Tata Iron and Steel Company, 231 ITR 285 (SC). 6 O b h lf f h h b i i d 2007:DHC:406 (a) In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills followed by this Court in IFFCO and Paper Products, the question of increase in liability on capital account as a…