CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

91 ITD 573Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#21709 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. THE JALPAIGURI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JALPAIGURI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

…[(2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. b) CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd [293 ITR 357 (Mad)). c) CIT v KICM Investments (Cal) [310 ITR 4] wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. d) CIT v Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [,46 ITR 144 (SC)] e) TCL Finance Ltd v ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.). f) The Durga Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd v Department of Income Tax [Appeal 511 Vijag Tribunal vide order dated io" March, 2011]. ITA Nos.326 & 327/Kol/2017 The Jalpaiguri Central Co-operative Bank Ltd;. A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 4 g) Nadia District Cent Co-op. Bank Ltd. v Department of Income Tax, in ITA No.1851/Kol/2012, vide order dated 01/08/2…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. THE JALPAIGURI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., JALPAIGURI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MARUTI SECURITIES LIMITED, SECUNDRABAD

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

ITA 1651/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

…loans. As there was no charge of interest it was held that the assessee was not entitled to any income and the deemed addition made by the Assessing Officer is to be deleted. 25. We may further refer to the decision of this Tribunal in CCI Finance V/s. ACIT (91 ITD 573), also relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, wherein it was held that accrual of interest income on non-performing assets account has to be judged from realistic point of view. Non recognition of interest income on the ground that the interest had not really accrued as the realisability of principal outstanding itself was doubtful w…

M/S. INDIAN SEAMLESS STEELS & ALLOYS LTD. vs. THE JT CIT S.R.19,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2214/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43D

…essee observed, the expenditure was not debited to the Profit & Loss account which indicates that the assessee itself has not treated the amount as expenditure of the current year. Relying upon a decision of the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in TCI Finance Ltd., 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.), wherein, it was held that accrual of expenditure of income under mercantile system cannot be different under Income Tax Act and Companies Act, he held as the amount of expenditure was incurred for the development of a new product, the same cannot be allowed as deduction under section 37(1). 26 M/s. Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. (No…