CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain

21 SOT 29Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#8870 most cited

What is CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain authority for?

The decision in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain, 21 SOT 29, is discussed in the context of setting off business loss brought forward from AY 1999-2000, noting it stands on a different footing due to the insertion of words "ending before 1.4.2001" in a sub-section.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain · 21 SOT 29 · AY 1999-2000 · business loss · brought forward loss · carry forward · setting off loss · amended provisions

Judgments citing CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain

Ba Continuum India P.Ltd ( Since Merged Wotj Ba Cotinuum Solutions P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2271/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ba Continuum India Private Ito, Ward 9(1)(2), Limited (Since Merged With Ba Room No. 226, Vs. Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Building No. 5, K. Raheja Mind Mumbai-20. Space, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081. Pan No. Aaccc 3062 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 40

…ecision of the Hon'ble ecision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Eneron Wind Farms ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Eneron Wind Farms ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Eneron Wind Farms (Krishna) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Krishna) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 21 SOT 29, was rendered in (2008) 21 SOT 29, was rendered in respect of setting off the business loss brought forward from respect of setting off the business loss brought forward from respect of setting off the business loss brought forward from A.Y. 1999-2000, and hence stands on a different footing, in 2000, and hence stands on a different footing, in 200…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…which is within the tolerable limit stipulated in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction: - CIT V. Mohinder Lal Haryani: 307 ITR 348 (Del.) - CIT vs. Satya NarainPatni: 269 CTR 466 (Raj) - CIT vs. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain: 339 ITR 351 (Guj) - ACIT vs. Gopi Lal Mor: 21 SOT 29 (Jodh) - ACIT vs. Rameshchandra R. Patel: 89 ITD 203 (Ahd) 8.7 Further, in so far as the allegation of the assessing officer that the jewellery found short during the course of search could not be reconciled, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that some of the jewellery items found during the course of search do not match with the items specified…

ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S R.S. Software(India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1948/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agrwal, Advocte
Section 1Section 10ASection 10BSection 154

…onsidered the decision of the judgement of the Hon'ble Chennai ITAT in the case of Ford Business Services Center (P) Ltd. -vs- ACIT reported in 114 TTJ 881[Chennai ] and judgement 0/ the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Enercon Wind Farms [Krishna] Ltd. 21 SOT 29. 4 CIT -v s- Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. [Bombay High Court] vide order dated 09.0-1.2012. 5.Scientific Atlanta -vs- ACIT, ITAT Special Bench, Chennai reported in 129 TT J 173. 1 have carefully considered the facts 0/ the case and the submissions of the assessee. In the judgments / decisions mentioned above, Court / ITAT have supported asse…

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6820/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jain & Sh. Rajendraassessment Year: 2005-06 Pan : Aaacr4849R M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Range 2(3), Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By:Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. Advocate Respondent By:Sh. N.K. Chand, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2015 Order Per A.D. Jain, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Chand, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 30Section 40Section 70Section 90Section 91

…TJ 691) (Bang.ITAT) 17 Asstt. Year : 2005-06 viii) “A.V.Thomas Leather & Allied Products Ltd.”, (ITA No.1021/Mad/2008) (Chennai ITAT). ix) “Honeywell International India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT”, (108 TTJ 924) (Delhi ITAT). x) “Enercon Wind Farms (Krishna ) Ltd.”, (21 SOT 29) (Mum. ITAT). xi) “Ford Business Services Centre Pvt. Ltd.”, (114 TTJ 881) (Chennai ITAT). 36. Apropos this Ground No.6, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that without prejudice, the revised loss of Rs.19,47,56,123/-, after adjustments by the AO, should be considered for disallowance, instead of the returned loss of Rs.21,27,69,208/-…

CIT v. RatanlalVyaparilal Jain (21 SOT 29) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax