CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.

236 ITR 518Supreme Court of India1999#449 most cited

What is CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. authority for?

For the purpose of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, a liability is considered to have ceased only when the creditor actively releases or writes off the amount, or when the liability ceases to exist in the assessee's books; mere expiry of the limitation period for recovery does not constitute cessation of liability.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works · 236 ITR 518 · Supreme Court · Section 41(1) · cessation of liability · remission of liability · deemed income · limitation period · creditor write-off · liability ceased to exist in books

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 713

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundapproved gratuity fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)section 40a(9)section 211section 41(1)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dsection 41slump salesection 32(1)(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 898/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09For Respondent: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 41(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi Before : Shri I.C. Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos.898 & 899/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, New Delhi. Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN – AAACA1967D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1348 & 1349/Del./2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Central Circle-6, vs. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 8th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pradeep Dinod…

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

…se amount. The ld. AR further argued that merely because these creditors were very old would not be justification to treat as income. 7. In defence of his arguments the ld.AR heavily relied upon the following case laws: i) CIT V/s Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd (236 ITR 518)(SC) ii) New Commercial Mills Co Ltd V/s DCIT 73 TTJ 893(Ahd) iii) CIT V/s Vardhman Overseas Ltd reported at 343 ITR 408 (Del) The ld.AR finally prayed that it was unequivocally clear that the in the balance sheet these amounts were outstanding for many years and therefore cannot be treated as ceased liability under the provisions of section 41(1…

Smt. Abhadevi Narendra Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. The ACIT, Khandwa

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 58/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.58/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…in ITA No. 659/Kol/2013, Unison Hotels Ltd v/s ACIT ITA No. 2113/Del/2012, CIT v/s Southern Roadways Ltd. 282 ITR 379 , New Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. v/s Dy. CIT (2001) 73 TTJ (Ahd) 893, CIT v/s Sugauli Sugar Works (P) LTD. (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 46; (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC): ((1999) 102 TAXMAN 713 (SC), Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 24 SOT 393 (Del), Smt. Abhadevi Agarwal/ I.T.A. No.58/Ind/2015/A.Y.:10-11 Page 10 of 19 Wilson & Co v/s ACIT 121 TTJ 258. Therefore, it was claimed that the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act are attracted only when the assessee…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sjr Commodities & Consultancies P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms Beena Santosh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 41(1)

…AR of assessee further argued that AO wrongly applied the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Limited 222 ITR 344. The case of assessee is infact covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 518. The assessee has not credited the amount to the Profit & Loss A/c in the year under consideration and the same was declared in AY 2013-14 and no addition was called for. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that these fact was brought in the notice of ld. CIT(A) and after considering the contention of assessee, the disallowance was deleted. 6. We ha…

Manoj Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.455/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Manoj Singh, Vs. Dcit, Cir-51/Kol, 47, B.T.Road, Uttarapan, Kolkata-700054 Khardah, 24 Pgs (N), Kolkata-700116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Altps 9206 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-15/14-15/Cir-51/Kol, Dated 23.02.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,97,213/- Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act By Making The Addition On Account Of Remission Of Liability U/S.41(1) At Rs.9,00,690/-. The Assessee Runs A Transport Business Under The Name M/S Ma Kali The Name M/S Ma Kali Automobile. While Making The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Purohit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ted and illegal. Furthermore, ld. AR submitted that as per the A.O. this is actually a unilateral remission of trading liability. In this connection, reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. [236 ITR 518], in which case it has been held that any unilateral action on the part of the assessee Like writing back the liability amount in his books does not amount to cessation or remission of the liability. Hence, there cannot at all, be any case of cessation or remission of liability in this case and hence, the provisions of Section 41 (1) of the Act,…

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

…is remission / cessation of liability. The aforesaid finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was also upheld by the Tribunal in assessment year 2001–02, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., 236 ITR 518 and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Asia Business Ventures v/s ITO, 74 taxmann.com 84. In the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative has also furnished a chart before us of the sundry creditors existing for more than three years indicating that in one case, the outstanding amount was paid back to the sundry credit…

M/S A.S. Syndicate Warehousing (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, WD -11(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2095/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

…year under appeal). In response to this, the ld. D.R. vehemently relied on the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. A.R. for the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this argument:- (i) CIT –vs.- Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Limited [236 ITR 518 (SC)]; (ii) Goodricke Group Limited –vs.- CIT [338 ITR 116 (Cal.)]; (iii) CIT –vs.- Chougule & Co. (P) Limited [189 ITR 473 (Bom.)]; (iv) Steel and General Mills Co. Limited –vs.-CIT[96 ITR 438 (Del]; (v) CIT –vs.- Ancherry Pauoo Kakku [1986] 160 ITR 88 (Ker.); (vi) Ambica Mills Limited –vs.- CIT [54 ITR 167 (Guj.)]; (vii) CIT –vs.- Silver Cotton…

S. Sampathraj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…outstanding sundry creditors were treated as taxable. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT(Chief) Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 434(SC) and CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd., (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC, has held that such amounts cannot be brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (supra) held that a unilateral action cannot bring about a cessation or remission of the liability because a remission can be granted only by the creditor and a cessation of the liab…

ITO 12 12(1)4, Mumbai vs. Gautam K Nemani, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands partly allowed

ITA 2607/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2607/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-17(1)(4) M/S. Rahul G. Nemani Room No.115, Aayakar Bhavan L/H. Shri Gautam K. Nemani, Vs. Rajabahadur Manison, 1St Floor, 32 M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Apollo Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. Pan: Aaapn 3367 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K.V. Vispute-Dr Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 04/01/2013,Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 31/10/2007, Declaring Income At Rs.(-)1.75 Lakhs.The Assessing Office(Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 30/ 12/ 2009,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2,51, 09, 397/-.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal-ARFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/2607/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-17(1)(4) M/s. Rahul G. Nemani Room No.115, Aayakar Bhavan L/H. Shri Gautam K. N…

ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vikram A Pradhan, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 20(3)(4), 511, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri M. V.RajguruFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…year under consideration and prayed that the entire addition be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the material on record and referring to the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) and U.O.I vs. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. (199 ITR 14) (SC) held that in the case on hand there is no write back of the liability payable to various creditors which is duly disclosed in the assessee’s Balance Sheet as on 31/3/2007. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that no independent inquiries were carried out by the Assessing Officer to establish that t…

Venus Detective & Security Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal for A

ITA 879/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. M.V. Rajguru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 41(1)

…We, therefore, hold that the addition of Rs. 10,38,403/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and direct the A.O to delete the same. In coming to this finding, we draw support from the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.(1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) and of the Delhi High Court in the case of Hotline Electronics Ltd. (2012) 80 CCH 0156 (Del HC), which are clearly applicable in the case on hand. Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, the assessee appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 is Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2016 (SANDEEP GOSAIN)…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Fiesta Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5257/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

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

…Act. Accordingly, he added the said amount of Rs.3,74,00,000I- to the total income of the assessee. In support of his view, the AO relied upon the judgments in the cases of T. V. Sundaram lyengar and Sons Ltd, 222 ITR 344 (SC) and Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd 236 ITR 518 (SC). The AO also observed that though both the assessee as well as M/s Dawat-E-Hadiyah Trust, have 3 ITA 5257/Mum/2014 contended that the transaction was in respect of transfer of property, but this fact was not substantiated by the assessee with any cogent evidence. Both the parties were separately asked to furnish the evidence in this regard b…

A.C.I.T.-9(1), Mumbai vs. Colour Roof India Ltd, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5816/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am D.C.I.T. Rg. 9(1), Vs. M/S. Colour Roof Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 223, B-1/1, Mayur Ma-Krupa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Society, Opp. Gokhale School, Mumbai – 20. Shimpoli Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai – 400 092. Pan: Aabcc3215D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM D.C.I.T. Rg. 9(1), Vs. M/s. Colour Roof Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 223, B-1/1, Mayur Ma-Krupa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Society, Opp. Gokhale School, Mumbai – 20. Shimpoli Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai – 400 092. PAN: AABCC3215D Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by .. Shri K.V. Narsimha Charya Assessee by .. Shri Hemant Bahedia Date of hearing 26-07-2016 Date of pronouncement 10-08-2016 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (AM) : The instant appeal has been filed by Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 assailin…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4423/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-34, Vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai. D-704,Vastu Park, Evershine Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai - 95

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari – AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy - DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E, ‘MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, Central Circle-34, Vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai. D-704,Vastu Park, Evershine Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai - 95 PAN No. AAEPR 0211 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.C. Tiwari – Adv. Department By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy - DR Date of hearing : 21/07/2016. Date of pronouncement : 19/10/2016. O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 25/04/2012 for the As…

Bilt Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1934/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Chand Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vijayalakshmi, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 5

…of Income Tax Act and Companies Act. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted and relid on the decisions: (1) CIT vs. Shri. Vardhman Overseas 343 ITR 408 (Del) (2) POABS Rocks Products (P) ltd vs. DICT 19 ITR 0546 (3) CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518 (SC) (4) Mahabir Cold Storage vs. CIT 188 ITR 91 (SC) (5) Glen Williams vs. ACIT in ITA No.1078/Bang/2014 (Bangalore) (6) M/s. Perfect Paradise Emporium vs. ITO in ITA No. 159/Del/2011. ITA No.1934/Mds/2015. :- 11 -: One crucial aspect on sundry creditors were the assessee company for the first time filed before Tribunal the list of Creditors…

Madan Mohla, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5936/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Madan Mohla, Ito 11(1)(2) 301, Kings Apartments, Juhu Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Tara Road, M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400049 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaopm1470C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjiv M. Shah (Ar) Shri Rajguru (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-3 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 22.07.2011 Passed Against

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

…tion. The reliance has been placed on the following cases in support of proposition that no addition could have been made u/s 41(1), unless the liabilities actually ceased to exist and that too during the impugned year:- 1. CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518(SC) 2. CIT vs. SI Group 379 ITR 326(SC) 3. CCIT v. Kesaria 254 ITR 434 (SC) 4. CIT v. Jain 85 CCH 66 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Matruprasad 377 ITR 363(Guj) 6. ITO v. Bhavesh 46 SOT 268(AHM) 7. Mitin v. ACIT 40 SOT 253 (AHM) 4 Madan Mohla 3.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.6. We have gone through the orders…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Mumbai vs. Lawrence Dyes & Petrochemical Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6520/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6520/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…ence Dyes& Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. amount is appearing in the accounts for several years, the same cannot be taxed by provision of section 41(1). We found support from the following judicial orders in the case of “CITvs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd.” [1999] 236 ITR 518 (SC). We are also of the considered view that merely because account has become non- operational for a period of three years it does not mean that outstanding loan of assessee has cease to exist more so, when the assessee had not written off such loan in its P&L A/c. In this respect we find support from DCIT vs. Votak Excelsiour.. 6.2 Considerin…

M/S. Gujarat Glass Ltd vs. The Addl CIT RG 6(3)

In the result, appeals are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 9645/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A.TharFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143(3)

…f the act. In this view of the matter the addition of Rs 38,71,638 made by the AO in this behalf is deleted.” 16. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 and Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Aasia Business Ventures, 41 taxmann.com 84. 17. The revenue is also aggrieved for excluding the provisions made for redemption of debentures while calculating book profit u/s.115JB. 18. This ground is against the action of the CIT(A) in excluding an amount of Rs.2.25 crores being provisions made for…

ACIT 1`0(1), Mumbai vs. Sprandi India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri R.A. DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Ishwar P. Rathi
Section 41(1)

…e u/s. 41(1) of the Act as cessation of liability. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supports the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held treated as income/cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act. He also placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. 38 DTR 313 (Bom). 7. Heard both sides, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel. It is the contention of the…

ITO WD 48(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Puspal Kumar Das, Howrah

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

ITA 1442/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kr. Sardar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…itted that the sundry creditors cannot be added by the A.O. if there is no remission of cessation of trading liability and hr the above contention the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., 236 ITR 518. The assessee therefore submitted that there was no basis for this addition made by the A.O. 8.3 The CIT(A) was of the view that the A.O. had carried on verification in respect of certain transactions/purchases made by the assessee from nine different parties and in view of the fact that the notices for verification u/s.133(6) issued by the A.O…