CIT v. Savi Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

373 ITR 243High Court2015#24722 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act Section 250 of the Income-tax Act Section 73 of the Income-tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Savi Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

…the assessee company is mainly in loans and advances and hence the invocation of Explanation to Sec. 73 was bad in law and the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Savi Commercial Pvt. Ltd reported in 373 ITR 243 (Cal) wherein the Court dismissed the appeal of the Department and agreed with the decision of the Tribunal that in the Explanation to Sec. 73, two 9 Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd exceptions can be made which are based on two distinguishing factors. One fact was based on income and the other was based on activity. In the decided case the assessee…

M/S Snowtex Investment Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -2, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

C.A. No.-004483-004483 - 2019Supreme Court30 Apr 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 43(5)Section 43(5)(d)Section 73

…es, the specific admission of the assessee before the assessing officer assumes significance. The assessee made an admission on a statement of fact which in our view, must bind it. In this view of the matter, the principal business of the 6 (2015) 373 ITR 243 11 assessee was not of granting loans and advances during the assessment year. As a consequence, the deeming fiction under Section 73 would be attracted. Hence, the finding of the High Court, on the first aspect, cannot be faulted. 23 That leads the Court to the second submission which has been canvassed in the course of the hearing of the ap…

ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata vs. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri N.K.Poddar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Gautam M.Bavishi,FCA

Section 73Section 73(1)

…incipal business of the Assessee was giving loans and advances was correct and no fault can be found with the order of CIT(A) in this regard. Our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Savi Commercial P. Ltd., 373 ITR 243 (cal) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court on identical facts came to the conclusion that if granting of loans and advances was on a larger scale than the business of buying and selling shares then that would be a criteria to decide the principal business of the company as being one of granting loans and advances. The Hon’ble Court held that i…