CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

222 ITR 344Supreme Court of India1996#398 most cited

What is CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. authority for?

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

223

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. · 222 ITR 344 · Section 41(1) · unclaimed trading deposits · sundry credit balances written back · cessation of trading liability · taxability of income · waiver of loan applicability · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 14ASection 28(iv)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 133ASection 142(2A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)waiver of loansection 28(iv)section 43(b)section 43(6)resulting companysection 41(1)section 43(1)section 41demergersection 32(1)(ii)written down value

Judgments citing CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…as there is no claim or identity of person which belongs legally. The Assessing Officer found that there is unclaimed amount in the books and it was not brought to tax and relied on the decision of apex court in the case of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) and applied the ratio of unclaimed dividend of the investors or Regulatory authority and such unclaimed amount cannot remain with the companies or the bankers. The assessee bank explained that the unclaimed balance belongs to clients and same cannot be treated as income of the bank. The Assessing :- 15 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 18…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…as there is no claim or identity of person which belongs legally. The Assessing Officer found that there is unclaimed amount in the books and it was not brought to tax and relied on the decision of apex court in the case of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) and applied the ratio of unclaimed dividend of the investors or Regulatory authority and such unclaimed amount cannot remain with the companies or the bankers. The assessee bank explained that the unclaimed balance belongs to clients and same cannot be treated as income of the bank. The Assessing :- 15 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 18…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…as there is no claim or identity of person which belongs legally. The Assessing Officer found that there is unclaimed amount in the books and it was not brought to tax and relied on the decision of apex court in the case of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) and applied the ratio of unclaimed dividend of the investors or Regulatory authority and such unclaimed amount cannot remain with the companies or the bankers. The assessee bank explained that the unclaimed balance belongs to clients and same cannot be treated as income of the bank. The Assessing :- 15 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 18…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…as there is no claim or identity of person which belongs legally. The Assessing Officer found that there is unclaimed amount in the books and it was not brought to tax and relied on the decision of apex court in the case of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) and applied the ratio of unclaimed dividend of the investors or Regulatory authority and such unclaimed amount cannot remain with the companies or the bankers. The assessee bank explained that the unclaimed balance belongs to clients and same cannot be treated as income of the bank. The Assessing :- 15 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 18…

ACIT, Kumbakonam vs. City Union Bank Limited, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

…as there is no claim or identity of person which belongs legally. The Assessing Officer found that there is unclaimed amount in the books and it was not brought to tax and relied on the decision of apex court in the case of M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) and applied the ratio of unclaimed dividend of the investors or Regulatory authority and such unclaimed amount cannot remain with the companies or the bankers. The assessee bank explained that the unclaimed balance belongs to clients and same cannot be treated as income of the bank. The Assessing :- 15 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 18…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…y held that since the raising of debentures was in the course of business, forfeiture thereof fell on revenue M/s. SICOM Ltd., account. The A.O. in that case had relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V.Sundaram lyengar & Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344). The Tribunal negatived the contention of the lower authorities by holding that the raising of debentures was a capital account transaction and subsequent remission thereof would not make it taxable as income. The Tribunal also held that such remission cannot be charged to tax u/. 41 (1) since the corresponding liability was not allowed as deduc…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…y held that since the raising of debentures was in the course of business, forfeiture thereof fell on revenue M/s. SICOM Ltd., account. The A.O. in that case had relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V.Sundaram lyengar & Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344). The Tribunal negatived the contention of the lower authorities by holding that the raising of debentures was a capital account transaction and subsequent remission thereof would not make it taxable as income. The Tribunal also held that such remission cannot be charged to tax u/. 41 (1) since the corresponding liability was not allowed as deduc…

ACIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6835/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla: (A.Y : 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastor & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A(9)Section 43B

…ing the addition of Rs.255.685 crores being the discount given by Karnataka Government as loan payable by the assessee from the sales tax collected by it ignoring the decision of Apex Court on similar issue in the case of CIT Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyangar & Sons (222 ITR 344). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the interest received from Oil Coordination Committee as business income as against income from other sources held by the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the dis…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ed on 23.12.2011, (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), the Delhi High Court, referring to its judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (22009) 311 ITR 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 to what would constitute remissions or cessation of trading liability. The Hon'ble Court noted that in the reported case, the assessee has not unilaterally written back the accounts of the sundry creditors in its profit and loss accoun…

D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 4466/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vibhadeep Investment & Income Tax-3(3), Room Trading Ltd., Mafatlal House, No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar H. T. Parekh Marg, Backbay Bhavan, M. K. Road, Reclamation, Mumbai 400 Mumbai 400 020 020 Pan: Aaacv 1946 M Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.155/Mum/2013 (In Ita No.4466/Mum/2012- Ay: 2008-09)

Section 115JSection 143Section 28

…ely different as much as it was a loan taken for trading activity and ultimately, upon waiver the amount was retained in the business by the assessee. Thus, the principal stated by the Supreme Court in the case of T. V. Sundaeram Iyenger & Sons Limited (1996) 222 ITR 344 would be squarely applicable to t he facts of the present case. The amount which initially did not fall within the scope of the provisions rendering it liable to tax subsequently had become the assessee’s income being part of the trading of the assessee.” 4.9 The appellant’s A/R, having drawn my attention to the aforesaid observation of jurisdic…

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)

…income of the assessee under section 41(1) of the 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 separat…

Smd Travel Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3026/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Sahu -AR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”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 सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/3026/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 20007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s.SMD Travel Corporation Income tax Officer-18(3)(4) 4/5, New Udyog Mandir, Room No.206, Piramal Chambers Vs. Bhago…

Credit Suisse Business Analystics (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt.CIT- 15(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 993/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 78

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी. एन एन. "साद "साद,"याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं सी सी एन एन "साद "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/993/Mum/2015,िनधा" रण वष" आयकर िनधा"रण आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा" िनधा" रण रण वष" वष" Credit Suisse Business Analysis (India) ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Room-403 Pvt. Ltd. Third and Fo…

M/S. Hi- Tech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6080/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jian, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41

…ed as there is no acquisition of any fixed asset by the assessee. Ld. D.R. emphasized that the loan was taken for trading purposes and thus should not be allowed by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs T V Sundaram Ayangar Sons reported in 222 ITR 344 (S.C.). 8.4 We have perused the details of the orders passed by the authorities below and the arguments advanced by both the parities. We support the contention of the assessee that every receipt in question with the business cannot be said to be a trading receipt. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing Ferro Alloys and term loa…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Santogen Silk Mills Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1700/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1700/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(3)-1, Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 201, 2Nd Floor, 69-A, Midc Industrial Area, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Andheri East, Mumbai-93 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7361 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. C. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas JadhavFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…ter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 30.12.2011. 2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.), relying on the decisions in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Bom) and CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC), brought the principal amount of the loan waiver of Rs.460.93 lacs – allowed to the assessee during the year by M/s. Karur Vyasa Bank Ltd. and Indian Bank (per the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) arrived at with them), to tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act, which reads as under; the assessee having already disclosed the interest waiver of Rs.345.17…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…h the bankers. Thus, the AO held that the amount should be treated as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee company. To support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., (1996)222 ITR 344 [SC]. The AO held that the assessee company has offered for taxation as revenue receipt on the relief allowed by the Bank on the amount of Rs. 2,06,82,471/- , and by the same treatment the amount of Rs. 1,37,19,684/- is also taxable as revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee company and hence the sum was added to the total income of the ass…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 5348/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal BohraFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)

…back (Rs.1.01lakhs) and sundry income (Rs. 39.88 lakhs).With regard to consultancy services,it was argued that issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd(330 ITR 62), that in the cases of TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.(222 ITR 344),Eastern International Hotel Ltd.(93 ITD 233) the issue of sundry credit balances written back has been decided in favour of the assessee, that in the cases of Alfa Lavel (India)Ltd.(295ITR451)& Abhishek Industries Ltd.(217Taxmann104),the issue of sundry income for the Gharda Chemicals-(05-06) purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80HHC has been d…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Zyma Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5379/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit- 10(1), M/S Zyma Laboratories Ltd. 455, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. Pan: Aaacz0199A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vasantiben PatelFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (DR)
Section 28Section 41(1)

…sion business as per sec.41(1) Explanation of Sec. 170 of I.T. Act, hence condition no. (ii) was not fulfilled. A.O’s addition is not tenable in law. 14. The AO while making the addition relied upon the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundram Iyngar & Sons reported vide 222 ITR 344(SC) and Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 on the issue of treating the loan as trading liability. The fact of the T.V. Sundram Iyngar case are entirely different from the fact of the case in our hand the case in our hand in respect of re-payment of loan which was assigned on account of scheme of amalgamation which was approved by Hon’ble…

Lavlesh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2580/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Shri A.Ramachandran
Section 131Section 271(1)(c)Section 28(1)

…g Officer finally concluded by observing “therefore, I disallow an amount of Rs.79,71,374/- out of the above liability after giving discount for the confirmation received”. Support was drawn from the decision in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons, 222 ITR 344(SC). 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and reiterated what has been stated during the course of the assessment proceedings. After considering the facts and the submissions, the CIT(A) was of the strong belief that the assessee has no intention to refund the money as the assessee has not adhered to the Police…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Finance, Manipal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. . Appellant Vs. M/S Manipal Finance Corpn., Ltd., Manipal. . Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. PK Srihari, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…in the year of receipt, the amount charges its character when the amount becomes appellant’s own money because of limitation or any other statutory or contractual rights as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344). The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the provisions of sec.28(iv) of the IT Act and failing to note that since the appellant is carrying on finance business the principal portion forgone by the depositors is benefit or perquisite arising from exercise of business. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of Hon…