CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd.

384 ITR 530High Court2016#2425 most cited

What is CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Benefits received by a company from its business operations, such as waived loans not used for capital assets, are taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. · 384 ITR 530 · section 28(iv) · business income · waiver of loan · benefit taxable · section 28

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 28(iv)Section 92CASection 234BSection 271Section 274Section 28

Issues it is cited on

section 28(iv)arm's length pricesection 28section 92casection 92csection 92section 144cinternational transactiontransfercompanytotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1824/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28

…of the Act. In this regard, the AO placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras IT(TP)A No.1824/Bang/2017 ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 10 of 13 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaniyam Home Private Limited (2016)(384 ITR 530). 17. The Ld DRP confirmed the order of AO with the following observations:- “Having considered the submission, it is not a disputed fact that the above asset (which has been capitalized in the books of account of the assessee) has been received free of cost and it is also an admitted fact that they have been provided by the parent company for t…

M/S. Archana Traders Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 408/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavansh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 28Section 51

…d that the impugned amount of Rs.3 crores is assessable as income of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Act. In this regard, the A.O. placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 68 Taxmann.com 289. Accordingly, he assessed the above amount u/s 28(iv) of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that neither the assessee nor Shri Naveen P. Patil had furnished the details of project for which Shri Naveen P. Patil had given the sum of Rs.3.77 crores to the assessee company. He further noticed that, as per the agreement to sale dated 29.8.20…

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

…assessee is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act, by placing reliance on the decision 28(iv) of the Act, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 384 ITR 530] CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 384 ITR 530] CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. [(2016) 384 ITR 530]. 24. The ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, Shri C.S. Agarwal, submits that provisions of section 28(iv) submits that provisions of section 28(iv) does not apply in the present case as the receipt of Rs. 19.83 does not a…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…r of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which are dealt with as under: – i) CIT vs. Sunderam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344): ii) Solid Containers Ltd. v DCIT (308 ITR 417) (Bom): iii)CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd., 384 ITR 530 Madras: iv)CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd., 255 ITR 510 ( Mad): v) CIT vs. ICC India Pvt. Ltd., 83 CCH 74 Delhi vi) Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.4619/MUM/2006): The ld DR also contended that the arguments of the ld. AR has no merits so far the issue of assessing the said receipt under section 41(1) by the AO while the…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakaulam vs. Sri Vasavi Polymers Private Limited`, Rajam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/S Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [Pan : Aaecs1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y.A.Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-9, Hyderabad In Ita No.10300/Cit(A)-9, Hyd/2017-18 Dated 09.08.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2013-14. With The Delay Of 1 Day. The Department Has Filed Condonation Petition & Submitted That The Delay Was Due To The 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Ravi Shankar NarayanFor Respondent: Shri Y.A.Rao, AR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.606/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Income Tax Officer Vs M/s Sri Vasavi Polymers P.Ltd. Ward-3 S.No.125 & 126, Anthakapalli Srikakulam Rajam [PAN : AAECS1849J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, CIT, DR प्रत्यधथी की ओर…

The Supreme Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 115JSection 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 43(6)Section 45Section 51Section 80

…ed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344 (SC). In this regard, he also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd., 384 ITR 530 (Madras). The learned DR submitted that the assessee has wrongly credited the Capital Reserve, rather, it should be taxed under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The learned DR further submitted that what the learned CIT(A) has done is also correct inasmuch as the amount which has been shown as forfeiture of advance is a colourable device as per the lea…

M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 937/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य के सम' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04 v. M/s. Southern Petrochemical The Commissioner of Industries Corporation Ltd., Income-tax, C/o M/s. Subbarayar Aiyar Chennai-III Padmanabhan & Ramamani Chennai- Advocates, New No.75A (Old No.105A), Dr. Radhakirshnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai -600004. [PAN: AAACS4668K] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent) : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan…

M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…89/DEL/2017 21. Lastly, he submitted that the following decisions may be considered with regard to applicability of Section 28 in the present case; i. CIT Vs Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd f20161 68 taxmann.com 289 (Madras)/ (2016) 239 Taxman 486 (Madras) / (2016) 384 ITR 530 (Madras)/r20161 287 CTR 200 (Madras), where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that amount representing principal loan waived by bank under one time settlement scheme would constitute income falling under section 28(iv). ii. CIT Vs R.L. Kasliwal M9941 77 Taxman 58 (Rajasthan)/H9941 207 ITR 208 (Ra|asthan)/[19941 120 CTR 56 (Rajasthan) where Hon'ble R…

M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…89/DEL/2017 21. Lastly, he submitted that the following decisions may be considered with regard to applicability of Section 28 in the present case; i. CIT Vs Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd f20161 68 taxmann.com 289 (Madras)/ (2016) 239 Taxman 486 (Madras) / (2016) 384 ITR 530 (Madras)/r20161 287 CTR 200 (Madras), where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that amount representing principal loan waived by bank under one time settlement scheme would constitute income falling under section 28(iv). ii. CIT Vs R.L. Kasliwal M9941 77 Taxman 58 (Rajasthan)/H9941 207 ITR 208 (Ra|asthan)/[19941 120 CTR 56 (Rajasthan) where Hon'ble R…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acorus Wireless Unitech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…89/DEL/2017 21. Lastly, he submitted that the following decisions may be considered with regard to applicability of Section 28 in the present case; i. CIT Vs Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd f20161 68 taxmann.com 289 (Madras)/ (2016) 239 Taxman 486 (Madras) / (2016) 384 ITR 530 (Madras)/r20161 287 CTR 200 (Madras), where Hon'ble Madras High Court held that amount representing principal loan waived by bank under one time settlement scheme would constitute income falling under section 28(iv). ii. CIT Vs R.L. Kasliwal M9941 77 Taxman 58 (Rajasthan)/H9941 207 ITR 208 (Ra|asthan)/[19941 120 CTR 56 (Rajasthan) where Hon'ble R…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Logitronics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4541/Del of 2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT,Circle -15(2), vs M/s Logitronics P. Ltd., New Delhi. 1745, Hardayal Street, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi. PAN: AAACL0281H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil Date of Hearing: 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18.10.2019 ORDER PER NARASIMHA K. CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 21/4/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ne…

Pawan Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 5, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2322/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

…v) of the Act has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Mills Ltd. 404 ITR 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 530. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:- 12) The first issue is the applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act in the present case. Before moving further, we deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant provision herein below:- “28. Profits and gains of business or profession.—The following income shall be chargeable…

Sunil Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. DCIT, Circle Hisar, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2321/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

…v) of the Act has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Mills Ltd. 404 ITR 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 530. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:- 12) The first issue is the applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act in the present case. Before moving further, we deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant provision herein below:- “28. Profits and gains of business or profession.—The following income shall be chargeable…

Anil Kumar Bansal, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Hisar

In the result, captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 2320/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 28

…v) of the Act has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Mills Ltd. 404 ITR 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 530. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:- 12) The first issue is the applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act in the present case. Before moving further, we deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant provision herein below:- “28. Profits and gains of business or profession.—The following income shall be chargeable…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.7417/Mum/2010 & 7369/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2000-01 Cable Corporation of India Limited DCIT, Circle-2(1) 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Laxmi Building,6 Vs. ShoorjiVallabhdas Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN: AAACC2936J (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit Khatri Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe…

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Topical Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6089/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-7(3)(2), M/S. Topical Builders P. Ltd. Room No.616, 6Th Floor, (Now Known As M/S. Mahindra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, World City (Maharashtra Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 5Th Floor, Mahindra Tower, P.K. Vs. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aabct2713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Respondent By : Shri H.P. Mahajani With Shri Prasad Bapat (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri H.P. Mahajani with Shri Prasad Bapat (AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 28

…e assessee has not received any dividend. The ld. DR for the revenue in support of his submission relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Solid Container vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417 (Bom), Madras High Court in CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltld. (384 ITR 530 (Madras) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited (222 ITR 344). 4 ITA No. 6089 Mum 2014-M/s. Topical Builders P. Ltd. 6. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the year 1997 to 1999, the assessee availed…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Opera House Exports Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 41(1)Section 68

…ent year. In this regard, provisions of section 28(iv) read with section 2(24) of the Act are applicable. 5 2. CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar 222 ITR 112 (SC)[1996] 3.Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CIT 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) (MAG.) [2011] 4. CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. 384 ITR 530 (Madras) [2016] 5. Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) [2009] 6.CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 510 (Mad.)” 4. The learned AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The assessee during the assessme…

ITO Corporate Ward 2, Madurai vs. Madras Suspensions Limited, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1884/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Guru Bashyam, JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate
Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…co Regent Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2011] 331 ITR 317(Mad.) to grant the assessee relief. It was a further submission that the said decision is now stood reversed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd., reported in [2016] 384 ITR 530(Mad.). It was a prayer by ld.D.R that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be reversed. :- 3 -: 4. In reply, the ld.A.R submitted that the issue raised in this appeal was now settled by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd., in [2018] 302 CTR 213(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Co…

M/S. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Spl. RG. - 20, Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: MS Kadambari Dave, ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)

…ilateral fund to meet the capital cost incurred in changeover from CCFC for phasing out of production of refrigerant gases. Before us revenue has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramaniyam Homes Private Limited (2016) 68 Taxmann.com 289 (Madras) and according to revenue, the grant received by assessee is business receipt and for this the learned Sr. D.R. relied on para 39 of the judgement, which reads as under: “39. Therefore, it is not the actual receipt of money, but the receipt of a benefit or perquisite, which has a monetary value, whether such benefit or perquisite…

ITO, Ward-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 669/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Tini Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad. Ward – 2(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaact 7976K

For Appellant: Shri PVSS PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 41Section 41(1)

…bmitted that the CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the loan amount is only capital account and hence cannot be brought to tax as trading receipt. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P) Ltd., 68 Taxmann.com 289 (Madras). 7. The ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that for applicability of section 41, there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequently, during any previous year, if the creditor remits or…