CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengaran

222 ITR 334Reported decision#23837 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengaran

DCIT - 19(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAMANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 609/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

…of Logitronics P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 386 (Del); Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of solid containers Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009) reported in 178 Taxmann 192; and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengaran 1996, 222 ITR 334. Finally, he added the amount of loan waived of as Income of the Assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the loan amount taken by the Assessee, does not given rise to any sale or purchase of any goods 5 I.T.A. No.609&608/Mum/2023 CO 39 & CO 38/Mum 2023 M/S. RAMANI EXPORT, MUM albeit it will enable to assessee to have buffer amount in case of any…

DCIT - 19(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. RAMANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 608/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

…of Logitronics P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 333 ITR 386 (Del); Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of solid containers Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009) reported in 178 Taxmann 192; and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.V.Sundaram Iyengaran 1996, 222 ITR 334. Finally, he added the amount of loan waived of as Income of the Assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the loan amount taken by the Assessee, does not given rise to any sale or purchase of any goods 5 I.T.A. No.609&608/Mum/2023 CO 39 & CO 38/Mum 2023 M/S. RAMANI EXPORT, MUM albeit it will enable to assessee to have buffer amount in case of any…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. YUVRAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2751/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-
Section 41Section 41(1)

…eleted the addition which were upheld by the Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble High Court concurred with the AO and confirmed the addition. The Hon’ble Court has considered all the decisions relied upon by the assessee, viz. CIT Vs. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., 222 ITR 334. This decision has been relied upon by the AO also. Head note of this decision reads as under: “..The assessee had received certain deposits from customers in the course of carrying on his business, which were originally treated as capital receipts. Since these credit balances standing in favour of assessee's customers, were not claimed by the c…

CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengaran (222 ITR 334) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax