CIT v. Ramakrishna (326 ITR 315)

Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 696/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.694/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 32. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabct8153B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 32. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)13, Chennai Dated 27.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 14A

…a conscious decision to end the 13 I.T.A. Nos.694 & 696/Chny/17 liability of its subsidiary. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the ratio decided in the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramakrishna and sons Ltd. 326 ITR 315, wherein it has been held that loss on account of write off debt advanced to subsidiary is a bad debt reported. Moreover, the assessee contended that consequent to the CDR scheme, the assessee had written off the receivables from M/s NTADCL same as bad debt. The assessee further submitted that in the books of account of M/s NTADCL had accounted t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 694/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.694/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 32. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabct8153B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.696/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., 1St Floor, Poly Hose Towers, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), No. 86, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 32. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)13, Chennai Dated 27.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 14A

…a conscious decision to end the 13 I.T.A. Nos.694 & 696/Chny/17 liability of its subsidiary. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has relied on the ratio decided in the Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramakrishna and sons Ltd. 326 ITR 315, wherein it has been held that loss on account of write off debt advanced to subsidiary is a bad debt reported. Moreover, the assessee contended that consequent to the CDR scheme, the assessee had written off the receivables from M/s NTADCL same as bad debt. The assessee further submitted that in the books of account of M/s NTADCL had accounted t…

Chaitanya Builders & Leasing (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1829/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1829/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Respondent: Mr.A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

…m u/s.36(2)(i). The appellant had extracted the object clauses of the Memorandum of Association as also other objects to drive home the point. To support its claim the judgment of the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT v. V. Ramakrishna & Sons Ltd [2010] 326 ITR 315 was pressed into service. 5.1.2 I have carefully perused the decision relied upon and find that in the facts obtaining in that case the assessee was carrying on money lending business and had been advancing monies to its subsidiary companies and various other concerns and charged interest on the amount advanced to its subsidiary company. The int…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Fives Stein India Projects Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/KOL/2013[2009-10 & 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…fact has become bad. The Hon’ble Court has further held that if the debt has been written off in the books of accounts then it would be enough to allow the deduction. Further reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs Y. Ramakrishna & Sons Ltd reported in 326 ITR 315 (Mad), wherein it was held that:-) “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the transaction of the asessee of financing the subsidiary company was genuine and bona fide. The assessee paid further advances in its own interest with a view to recover the amount given earlier, to sustain a share and to avoid the guarantee being invoked. The mere fact of p…

Summit Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Spl. RG-16, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/KOL/1999[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2015AY 1995-1996

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri J.P Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee,JCIT, ld.DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ing out of this trade debts and hence the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. 4.4. We find that the reliance placed by the Learned AR on the following decisions squarely supports the case of the assessee:- • 326 ITR 315 (Mad) CIT Vs. Ramakrsihna & Sons Ltd Held, dismissing the appeal, that the transaction of the assessee of financing the subsidiary company was genuine and bonafide. The assessee paid further advances in its own interest with a view to recover the amount given earlier, to sustain a share and to avoid the guarantee being invoked. There mere fact of…

ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Progressive Stock Management Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1487/KOL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2003-04 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-1(2) -Versus- M/S. Progressive Stock Management Kolkata Co.Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aabcp 5590 J) For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Jcit For The Respondent : Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 136/Cit(A)-I/Wd-1(2)/05-06 Dated 19.05.2006 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment For The Asst Year 2003-04 Framed By The Learned Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCITFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Himmatsinghka, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…9,69,175 Chandra Sekhar Upadhyay, Laskar Halt, Madhyapara P.O. , Tiljala, Kolkata – 700039 36,375 Swapan Kanti Dey, Sreemanto Market, No.319, AT Road, Guwahati, Assam – 781001 1,02,776 11,08,326 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :- 326 ITR 315 (Mad) – CIT vs Y. Ramakrishna & Sons Ltd “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the transaction of the assessee of financing the subsidiary company was genuine and bona fide. The assessee paid further advances in its own interest with a view to recover the amount given earlier, to sustain a share and to avoid the guarantee being invoked. The mere fac…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi VI vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd

ITA - 444 / 2008HC Delhi11 May 2011

Section 35DSection 36

…eries*Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. - 22. It is held by the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Ramakrishna and ITA Nos.445, 444 & 448 of 2008 ![](_page_18_Picture_1.jpeg) Sons Ltd. 326 ITR 315 that the question as to whether the debt has become bad or not is a pure question of fact. Moreover, the amount payable by Makan to the assessee has to be treated as debt (which had become bad) as is clear from the meaning of 'debt' explained by the Karnataka High Court in the case of *United Breweries Ltd.* (supra). 23. This question is accordi…

CIT v. Ramakrishna

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramakrishna