CIT v. PK Kaimal

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDRAM FINANCE LOMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-A. LTU, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDARAM FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…7-: ITA. Nos:07, 08, 09, 26, 27, 28, 79, 80 & 81/Chny/2022 ITA No: 636/Chny/2023 assessee should be the same who originally claimed deduction of bad-debts written off. This was as per the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. PK Kaimal 123 ITR 755 (Mad). Since the amalgamating company was no more in existence, such recoveries would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, distinguishing the cited case-law, the AO held that Sec.41(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply to the successor of business also. The bad-debts, having been allowed as expenditure in the predecessor’s hand, the suc…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

…ed (Rs.1,95,88,388/-) in respect of bad debts written off in the books of amalgamating companies is not taxable in their hands 4.1 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in P K Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant. 4.2 The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would be taxable u/s.176 (3A) as income of discontinued business. 5. The Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion that for the hire purchase t…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

…the amalgamating companies of Rs.5,71,47,000/- is not taxable in their hands as successor u/s.41(4) which is the charging section. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in PK Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would either be taxable as other income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act or taxable under section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

…the amalgamating companies of Rs.5,71,47,000/- is not taxable in their hands as successor u/s.41(4) which is the charging section. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in PK Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would either be taxable as other income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act or taxable under section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

…the amalgamating companies of Rs.5,71,47,000/- is not taxable in their hands as successor u/s.41(4) which is the charging section. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in PK Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would either be taxable as other income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act or taxable under section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The…

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

…the amalgamating companies of Rs.5,71,47,000/- is not taxable in their hands as successor u/s.41(4) which is the charging section. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the decision of the Madras High Court in PK Kaimal's case (123 ITR 755) whereas the decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in observing that the bad debts recovery would either be taxable as other income under section 56 of the Income Tax Act or taxable under section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The…