CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.

343 ITR 408High Court2012#1487 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. authority for?

An addition under Section 68 cannot be made for genuine sundry creditors or trade payables merely carried forward from previous assessment years if there is no fresh credit in the relevant assessment year. Section 41(1) does not apply to acknowledged outstanding liabilities without actual remission or cessation.

76

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. · Section 68 · Section 41(1) · sundry creditors · trade payables · carried forward liabilities · no fresh credit · genuineness · remission of liability · cessation of liability · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

145 Taxmann.com 245

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 69CSection 271(1)(c)Section 133A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

remission or cessation of liabilitysection 41(1)section 41sundry creditorssection 44absection 36(1)(va)genuineness of the transactionsection 133section 133(6)section 69cunexplained expendituresection 44

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.

Garuda Marketing Associates, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Sri. Narayanan P Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…hat the creditors were not responding to it’s request for confirmation. The Assessing Officer (AO), accordingly, added the same to the assessee’s returned income. In appeal, the assessee relying on the decision in CIT v. Shri Vardhaman Overseas Limited [2012] 343 ITR 408 (Del), claimed that there had been no remission or cessation of liability 1 ITA No.211/Coch/ 2023 (AY 2014-15) Garuda Marketing Associates vs. ITO for the AO to have invoked sec.41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), in appeal, was of the view that the liability had not been proved, which was the assessee’s responsibility and, accordingly, confirmed…

ACIT Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Real Impact Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9459/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

….09.2016 13. Hence keeping in view the facts of the case, decision of the ld. CIT(A), applicability of provisions of section 41(1) and the judgments in CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. in ITA No, 7 Real Impact Pvt. Ltd., 774/2009 decided on 23.12.2011, (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), the Delhi High Court, referring to the judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 311 TR 299 (Del) and applying the ratio laid down the case of CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) under sec. 28 of the IT Act, considered the applicability of clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 41 as…

Raunika Fashion, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2311/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahemad, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked where the assessee has not written back these amounts in the books of accounts. 7.4 The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vardhman Overseas Ltd., 343 ITR 408 (Del) and Dattatray Poultry Breeding Farm P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2019) 104 taxmann.com 366 (Guj.). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vardhman case inter alia observed that for invocation of Section 41(1), it is necessary that the assessee should have received ‘some benefit’ with respect to all such trading liability. However, the benefit in respect of t…

Geeta Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 89/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Geeta Bhasin, Vs Acit, C/O-Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv., Circle-28(1), C0763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025. Pan-Acdpb6005D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Shri M.Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022

Section 12ASection 138Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 41(1)

…l question of law raised by the revenue in the present appeal in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed”. c) Jurisdictional Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 408, relevant portion from Head Notes is reproduced below: ‘‘Held, dismissing the appeal, that the assessee had not unilaterally written back the accounts of the sundry creditors in its profit and loss account. The liability was shown in the balance-sheet as on March 31, 2002. The assessee being a limited company, this amounted to acknowledging the d…

ACIT 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.281/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Income Tax -5(1) Ltd. Bhopal Block-1A, DB City Park, 5th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M. P. Nagar, Zone-1, Bhopal PAN No.AACCV6613P (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.DR Appellant by : Respondentby: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Date of Hearing 16.08.2022,…

Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

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

ITA 802/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, The Income Tax University Medical Officer, Centre, Ward 2 (1), Jyothi Circle, Mangalore. Mangalore. Vs. Pan: Akbpk2399B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2022 Order Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By Assessee Directed Against Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 07/03/2013. 2. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds. “1. The Appellate Court I.E. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore I.E., Has Erred In Confirming The Additions Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer. The Order Is Opposed To Law & Facts. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Has Passed The Order Mainly Presuming That The Appellant Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal As He Has Failed To Respond To The Notice. The Fact Is That The Appellant Was Very Much Interested In Getting Relief As The Appellant Is Not Having Sufficient Income Even To Lead A Normal Life. But Unfortunately, The Authorized Representative Failed In Discharging His Responsibility For The Reasons Best Known To Him.

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CA

…ntamount to acknowledgement of debt and that the liability has neither ceased to exist nor there is a remission of liability in terms of section 41(1) of the IT Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 408 and DCIT vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in 63 CCH 002 [Bang Trib]. 9. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the difference between the balance shown in the accounts of the assessee and balance shown in the accounts of M/s. Meghamani Organics cannot be treated as cessation of liability in terms of section 41(1) of t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arvind Kumar Arora

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/241/2022HC Delhi01 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 41(1)

…ITA 241/2022 Page 1 of 6 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 241/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue with Mr. Vipul Agrawal & Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing Counsels for Revenue . versus ARVIND KUMAR ARORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Kumar Jain & Mr. Nishchay Kantoor, Advocates. % Date of Decision: 01st September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): 1. Present appeal has been filed by Revenue challenging…

Balaji Construction, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 9/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…nt any specific material on assessee’s books evidencing actual cessation or remission; as the case may be, so as to attract section 41(1) of the Act. I thus quote CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (2014) 43 taxmann.com 55 (Gujarat) and Vardhman Overseas (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Delhi) to delete the impugned addition for this precise reason alone. 4. The legal position regarding section 68 addition of the very sum also fails the test of legality as it amount to hold together a new head of income in first appellate proceedings not sustainable in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. U…

Nitinkumar Dhondiram Kasture, Kolhapur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ichalkaranji Range, Ichalkaranji

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 117/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…nt any specific material on assessee’s books evidencing actual cessation or remission; as the case may be, so as to attract section 41(1) of the Act. I thus quote CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (2014) 43 taxmann.com 55 (Gujarat) and Vardhman Overseas (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Delhi) to delete the impugned addition for this precise reason alone. No other ground has been pressed during the course of hearing. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2022. (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 28th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) 3 आदेश क" "ित…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ITA No.7801/Mum/2019 A.Y.2016-17 1 United Shippers Limited Vs. DCIT-3(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER United Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACU0764C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Aakash Marthak & Bhupendra Karkhanis Respondent by : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Date of Hearing 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2…

ITO 24 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Omprakash N. Pariani (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2960/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1), Shri Omprakash N. Pariani (Huf) Mumbai. Vs. 1101, Samarth Prasad, Swami Samarth Nagar, Lokhandwala Circle, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan No.Aaah 06552R Appellant Respondent C.O. No.146/Mum/2019 (In 2960/Mum/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia, Ca Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 44A

…ts without any intention to pay back the same such action would result in cessation of liability and further relying of Chipsoft Technology 210 Taxman 173 (Del) the Hon'ble ITAT confirmed addition of liability u/s 41(1). In the case of Vardhaman Overseas Ltd. 343 ITR 408 (Del) the Hon'ble High Court Delhi held that section 41(1) does not apply if the amount is not written back in the books of accounts of the creditor. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (Guj) held that even if there is unclaimed liability of earlier years where even creditors are untraceable and liabilities are n…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…artedly and improperly without a specific confirmation of waiver by the creditor. The decisions of the Apex Court in ClT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) and of the jurisdictional High Court in ClT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 were cited on this behalf. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) disagreeing with the view taken by the Assessing Officer in terms of the reasons as contained in para 18 of his order and by following the decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court as cited has deleted the addition. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being in conformity with law m…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…plication of sec. 41(1). Obtaining benefit of virtue of remission or cessation of liability. Mere unilateral transfer entry in accounts. No benefit obtained. Section 41(1) was not applicable. (P.B. 1 to 7 of II) (2) CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del): Remission or cessation of trading liability. Scope of sec. 41. Liability to 15 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal creditors outstanding for more than four years. Liability shown in accounts of Assessee Company. Amount not assessable under section 41(1). (P.B. 8 to 11 of II). (3) Pr. CIT Vs. Matruprasad C. Pandey (2015) 377 ITR 363 (Del):…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1223/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.K.Y.Ningoji Rao, CA
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…s cannot be construed to have extinguished, and much less, to have assumed the character of income as envisaged u/s 41 (1) of the I.T. Act. The Assessee has placed reliance on the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri. Vardhman Overseas Ltd 343 ITR 408, in which it is held that, liabilities appearing in the B/S are tantamount to acknowledgement of debt, which neither ceazed to exist nor amounted to remission in terms of section 41 (1) of the I.T. Act. In background of the above discussion, facts submitted by the appellant; judicial position on the subject and in absence of valid evidenciary sup…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Arvind Kumar Arora, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1850/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate
Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT Circle 49(1), vs. Arvind Kumar Arora, New Delhi. W-35, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash part-I, New Delhi C.O. No. 117/Del/2017 (in ITA No. 1850/Del/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arvind Kumar Arora, vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), W-35, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash part-I, New Delhi PAN : ABXPA8204C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DR Respondent by: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Date of hearing: 0…

ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi vs. Shri Sumit Ramsisaria, Ranchi

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…N/16 ITAT Ranchi referring the various judgments has concluded that without rejecting the purchases, the sundry creditors could not be treated as income of the assessee. Copy of relevant order of ITAT is filed herewith. In CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), the Delhi High Court, referring to its judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 311 ITR 299 (Del) and applying the ratio laid down the case of CIT v. T. V. SundaramIyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, considered the applicability of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of sect…

Purna Chandra Biswal, Jajpur vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.200/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./PANNo. : ACLPB 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 14/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.…

Shri Navneet Modi, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, रााँची न्यायपीठ, रााँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एऱ.ऩी.साहु, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JM AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.106/RAN/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.53/RAN/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN No. : ACTPM 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenu…

SHI vs. U Canadian Clear Waters Ltd., Chennai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 797/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…impugned addition is under Section 41 (1) Section 68 of the Act. If there is cessation of liability, then subject to other requirements to be satisfied, Section 41(1) may apply. Under identical circumstances Delhi High Court in Ctl' vs Sri Vardhaman Overseas 343 ITR 408 as held that neither Section 68 nor Section 41(1) would apply. Without prejudice to the above - a. The addition cannot be sustained U / s. 41 (1) since the section applies only to a case where “an allowance or deduction is allowed in a particular year and subsequently __ ". b. If the addition is vs Sec 68, the addition cannot be sustained U/ s.68…

Dow Chemical Inernational Pvt. Ltd. As Successor of Roham and Haas (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in A

ITA 6577/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Rohm & Haas India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax-11(1)(1) 1St Floor, Block B, Room No.204, Aayakar 02, Godrej Business District Bhavan, M.K. Road, Priojshanagar, Lbs Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Sa No.261/Mum/2019 M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Income Tax Officer – International Pvt. Ltd., As 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Successor Of Rohm & Haas Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 Godrej It Park – P2 1St Floor Block B, 02 Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshahnagar Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 92E

…d lot of force in the reliance placed by the ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd.,reported in 236 ITR 518, decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd., in 343 ITR 408 (Del) which supports the argument of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made u/s.41(1) of the Act in the sum of Rs.1,24,008/-. Accordingly, the revised ground No.8 is allowed. 8. The revised ground Nos.9 & 10 raised by the assessee ar…