How many judgments cite CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.?

223 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (222 ITR 344), spanning 2002 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 41(1), Section 14A, Section 28(iv), Section 143(3), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 115JB.

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 14A Section 28(iv)Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JB Section 133A Section 142(2A)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)waiver of loan section 28(iv)section 43(b)section 43(6)resulting company section 41(1)section 43(1)section 41 demerger section 32(1)(ii)written down value

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

Srinivas Uppu, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee as well as the only appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1704/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…d on settlement and that income must be recognized in the period during which settlement took place. 6.19 In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that: "If the amount is received in the course of trading transactions, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of capital character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes the assessees own money because of limitation or by any other statutory Page 24 o…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1256/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1256/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2014-15 The Dcit, Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers Corporate Circle 1(1), V. India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. New No.45 (Old No.45) No.3, 3Rd Floor, Manjula Towers, Ceebros Complex, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aafca 0623B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…al in nature but when the share application pending allotment was used by assessee for its own business purpose, it became revenue. For this, ld.CIT-DR referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 344 and he referred to particular para 23 of the judgment which reads as under:- “In the present case, the money was received by the assessee in the course of carrying on his business. Although it was treated as deposit and was of capital nature at the point of time it was received, by efflux of time the money has become the assessee's own money. Wha…

Sh. Pradeep Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 393/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)

…uch credit entries alive in the Balance Sheet of the Assessee, even for a different business, could not indefinitely postpone the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act. ……………… 13. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. [(1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC)], the case before the Supreme Court was just contra and interesting. The Assessee had received certain deposits from customers in the course of carrying on its business, which were originally treated as capital receipts. Since those credit balances were not claimed by the customers or creditors, the Assessee transferred it to its profit and…

ITO Ward-4(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashik Wollen Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…In the case of Tosha International Ltd. (supra), neither the Tribunal nor this Court considered the issue from the standpoint of principal laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (1966) 222 ITR 344. (d) In Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2009) 308 ITR 417], the Bombay High Court applying the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (supra) distinguished its decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and has held that on waiver of loan taken for business purposes, the amount is retained in the business…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…med it to be a capital receipt. Even in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court to which Hon'ble Bombay High Court has relied upon in the case of CIT vs. TVS Iyengar & Sons M/s. JSW Steel Limited, (formerly known as Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited) Ltd, reported in 222 ITR 344, it was found that the loan/advance constituted a trading liability or was taken under trading account therefore, the ratio of the said decisions would not be applicable on the loan transaction which has been taken on capital account, even if it is for the business purpose. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a subsequent decision in the case of CIT…

V.Veerasekar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2081/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…td. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition u/s.68 as well as u/s.41(1) of the Act and also he invoked the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., (SC) 222 ITR 344. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that neither AO nor CIT(A) is sure whether this is a transaction of unexplained loan or credit or this is a cessation of liability to be added u/s.41(1) of the Act or it is a business receipt to be…

DCIT Cent. Cir, Mumbai vs. M/S. Skylark Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 57

…ases of remission of trade liabilities. Even otherwise, the long pending trade liabilities would take the form of revenue receipts over a period of time, if remained unclaimed, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T V Sundaram Iyengar and sons Ltd (222 ITR 344)(SC). Under facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the AO was justified in assessing the long pending advances, which has remained unexplained as income of the assessee. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 8. The next issue contested by the assessee as well as Revenue relates to disa…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Kolkata vs. M/S.Soorajmull Nagarmull

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of

ITAT/46/2020HC Calcutta23 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 148Section 260ASection 41Section 41(1)

…nue in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) and the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment dealt with the decision by making the following observations: The decision of this Court in CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (MANU/SC/1251/1996 : 222 ITR 344) has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no relevance of this decision to the determination of the question involved in the ITAT NO. 46 OF 2020 REPORTABLE Page 21 of…

M/S. Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…) is that it should be a benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which requirement is satisfied in the facts of the case. We also note that the ratio laid down by the Apex court decision in the case of CIT vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (222 ITR 344) and the High Court's decisions in Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417), Logitronics Private Limited vs. CIT (333 IT(TP)A No.2577/Bang/2019 Page 24 of 27 ITR 386), would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the view of the Assessing officer and accordingly the impugned disallowance is upheld.” 34…

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…as availed by assessee for working capital requirements and waiver of any such OCC loan amount either party or fully is a revenue receipt us. 2001) of the IT Act, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CITVS, TV Sundaramiyengar and Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344). .............. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the issue with regard to taxing the remission of liability u/s 28(v) and decided the issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, since, the receipt was in the nature of cash or money. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 28(iv) of the Act has no application since the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cooper Standard Automotive India P Ltd., Chengalput

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

ITA 794/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [Pan:Aabcc3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 05.01.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is As To Whether The Waiver Of Loan Amount Taken For Business Purposes Is Assessable As Business Income Under Section 28(Iv) R.W.S. 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…er provided the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. After considering the detailed reply of the assessee and by following the judgement of the 3 I.T.A. No. 794/Chny/16 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. TV Sundaram Iyenfgar & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344 (SC), the Assessing Officer treated the waiver of loan amounting to ₹.75,99,892/- as income of the year under section 28 of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as examining various case law, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appea…

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT, CC-7(2) Vs. M/s Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point MK Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACM2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Smt Shailja Rai.DR Respondent by : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR Date of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order passed by…

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…siness purpose is written back without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. v/s DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (Bom) and Hon'ble Supreme court decision in the case of CIT v/s T.V. Sundaram lyenger & Sons Ltd (1998) 222 ITR 344. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 1,51,53,000/- made u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act without appreciating strict provision of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on…

Technichem Oraganics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…tivities. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, 404 ITR 1 (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the reliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, 222 ITR 344 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 530 by the CIT(A), is not just and proper. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of in case of Anil Kumar Bansal vs. ITO, ITA Nos.2320 to 2322/Del/2019, order dated 02.08.2019. 6. Ld. DR submitted that the Asses…

India Cements Capital Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1932/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 263Section 41(1)

…n 26.06.2006 following change in the composition of Board of Directors. Hence it was merely a book transfer and the beneficiary is the assessee company. 2.4 It is submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s T.V. Sundaram lyengar& Sons (222 ITR 344) is applicable to the facts of the case since in this case the bank loan has been waived and the amount was also received in the course of trading transactionsand the character of the amountchangeswhen it becomes assessee's own money. 2.5 It is submitted that the decision of Madras High Court relied upon by the CIT(A) in the case of Iskraemeco Re…

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Unique Receivable Management Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3081/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 263Section 41(1)

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. India Cements Capital and Finance Ltd., Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1626/CHNY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 263Section 41(1)

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 148

…d decision. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer had categorically said that the loan includes working capital loans. 5 Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills The view is also supported by the order of ClT-Madhurai Vs. T. V. Sunderam lyerngar and Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344, where it was held that the Capital character of the amount changes when the amount become assessee’s own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right.” 5. Assessee was asked to submit the details relating the cessation of liability and in this regard assessee has filed the following chart: - CI. Bal Op.Bal. Recept…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Kaptronics Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…he CIT(A) held that remission cannot be treated as income u/s. 41(1) in the assessee’s case. 6. As regards whether loan is a trading liability or working capital requirement for taxability u/s. 28(iv) of the Act, the AO relied on T.V. Sundaram Iyengar [1996] 222 ITR 344. According to the CIT(A), as per this decision, it is to be ascertained whether loan is a trading liability or working capital requirement. In that case, the issue pertained to unclaimed security deposit directly taken from customer and not waiver of working capital loan. The Supreme Court held that the security deposit directly taken from custom…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.1955/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 ITA No.1956/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 ITA No.1957/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.207/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.I.G.Petrochemicals Limited The Deputy Commissioner of D-4, Jyothi Complex, Income-tax, v. 134/1 Infantry Rooad, Circle (3)(1)(1) Bengaluru. H.No.I-32/38/39/103 Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAACI4115R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR Date of…