How many judgments cite CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd.?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd. (206 ITR 291), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 14A, Section 8D, Section 10(35), Section 10B(2)(c), Section 115JB.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd.

206 ITR 291High Court1994#2121 most cited

What is CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd. authority for?

Losses arising from the conversion of foreign currency or from foreign exchange forward contracts entered into for business transactions, such as hedging export proceeds, are considered revenue or trading losses and are deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1). The amortization of premium paid on such foreign exchange contracts is also an allowable deduction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. · 206 ITR 291 · Section 37(1) · foreign exchange loss · revenue expenditure · trading loss · capital vs revenue · forward contracts · premium amortization · export proceeds · business loss

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 14A Section 8D Section 10(35)Section 10B(2)(c)Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 94 section 38 section 43(1)section 80h section 80hhc additional depreciation section 80hh tax benefit put to use block of assets section 41(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. V.S. Dempo and Co. P CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd.

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…rmer category is a trading loss and the loss arising on revaluation of foreign currency held in later category is a capital loss. 51. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court had an occasion to examine an identical issue in the case of CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. P Ltd (206 ITR 291) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has laid down following principles:- “15. The propositions that emerge from the above discussions may be summed up as follows : (i) A loss arising in the process of conversion of foreign currency which is part of the trading asset of the assessee is a trading loss as any other loss. (ii) In determining the tr…

Titan Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 156/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ito-10(2)(4) Ltd.102, Titan House, M.P. Room No. 431, Aaykar Vs. Vaidya Marg, Ghatkopar (E) Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacct0509Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jimit R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Jimit R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 211Section 28Section 43A

…be allowed either u/s 28 or 37(1). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) having gone through the decision in Woodword Governor India P. Lt.d 312 ITR 254 (SC), CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 206 ITR 291 (Bom) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) held as under: “What emerges out of the above decision in that the assessee should be holding & dealing the foreign currency on account of trading and only in such cases depending upon the appreciation or depreciation, the loss or profit can be determined and allowed. In the case be…

Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 290/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.290/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 11.07.2017

Section 143(3)

…is only where the same is in respect of a trading asset, that the same would be in the nature of a trading loss, allowable u/s. 28, also relying on the decisions in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 291 (Bom). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 8. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. There is, to begin with, no dichotomy between the decisions relied upon by the assessee and the Revenue. A trading loss shall arise, even if on restatement, to the extent it is qua a trading asset or liability. This is also the clear ma…

Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 119Section 144CSection 153Section 254Section 271Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Room No. M/s. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, 398D, C.R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACB0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT(DR) & Sh. S.K. Jain, DR Date of hearing 10.04.2017 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2017 ORDER Per O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 27/01…

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sushrut Surgicals P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6859/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR

Section 143Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6859/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-8(3) M/s. Sushrut Surgicals P.Ltd. Room No.217, Aayakar Bhavan C/o., GPS & Associates (C.A.) M.K. Marg Vs. A-1, Sindhi Niwas, Sitladevi Temple Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 016. PAN:AAACS 0…

Mainetti India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 624/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 37Section 43ASection 92C(2)

…ted 26.4.2005 stating that with respect to the execution of particular projects, it had borrowed certain monies on repatriation basis from its head office. The assessee also referred to Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (206 ITR 291) wherein it has summed up the position that for determining whether the devaluation loss is revenue or capital what is relevant is utilisation of the amount at the time of devaluation and not the object for which the loan was taken. Also it was held that loss in respect of circulating capital is revenue loss whereas loss in respect of fixed capit…

Aarti Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7039/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Dr. Kailash P. Gaikwad

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संजय गग" ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sanjay Garg,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.7039/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण व आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण व िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण व Aarti Industries Limited Addl. CIT-Range-10(3) 71, 2nd Floor, Udyog Kshetra, Mumbai. Mulund Goregaon Link Rd. Vs. Off, LBS Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai-400 080…

Bongfiglioli Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2997/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr.N.Sundar, CA &For Respondent: Mr.A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ccount until the date of settlement whereupon it can be credited or debited in the P & L a/c. The Hon’ble Tribunal while adjudicating in the matter had also taken into consideration the reliance placed by the assessee on the ratios of CIT v. Dempo & Co. P Ltd 206 ITR 291 (Bom.) and CIT v. Woodward Governor India P Ltd 312 ITR 254). Hence, the loss claimed is to be carried forward in the foreign currency translation reserve account and squared up at the time of settlement. It would suffice to say that the claim made by the appellant cannot be allowed till the time of settlement and accordingly the disallowance mad…

Linfox Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5704/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Linfox Logistics (India) Vs. Acit – 10 (1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., B-403, Universal Business Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri-East, Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl1515H Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit – 10 (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Linfox Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., B-403, Universal Business Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri-East, Mumbai – 400 072 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl1515H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajan Vora Revenue By Shri R.P.Meena

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40aSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Linfox Logistics (India) Vs. ACIT – 10 (1), Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., B-403, Universal Business Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri-East, Mumbai – 400 072 PAN/GIR No. AABCL1515H Appellant) Respondent) .. DCIT – 10 (1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Linfox Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd., B-403, Universal Business Park, Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri-East, Mumbai – 400 072 PAN/GIR No. AABCL1515H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora Revenue by Shri R.P.Meena Date of Hearing 08/11/2016 Date o…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Linfox Logistics (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 40aSection 68

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Givo Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2887/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal &For Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

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

…l decisions:- 1. CIT Vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 451 (Del). 2. Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC). 3. CIT Vs International Combustion (I) Pvt. Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 184 (Cal.). 4. CIT Vs V.S. Dempo & Co. (P) Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 291 (Bom). 5. CIT Vs IBM World Trade Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 673 (Bom.). 6. Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2002) 83 ITD 151 (Del.) (SB). I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the findings of the AO and the facts on record. Perusal of the facts on record show that the appellant is regularly following the mercantile basis of ac…

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Radhakrishan Consumer Services P. Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 6862/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6862/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Acit-8(3), M/S. Radhakrishna Consumer Aayakar Bhavan, Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Radhakrishna House, Majiwade Village Road, Majiwade, Thane-400 601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact 5839G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Anilkumar Dhondial ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri J.D. Mistry सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :12.10.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :21.10.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-18, Mumbai Dated 31.08.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 93,62,085/- Being Deposits Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri AnilkumarFor Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry

…ts and the submissions and drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Chenab Foresh Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 and also following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case CIT Vs Dempo & Co. Ltd 206 ITR 291, the Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the write off of deposits is a business loss and directed the AO to delete the addition. 5. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 3 ITA. No.6862/M/2012 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the AO. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…nsaction then “any profit that would accrue would be Revenue receipt; if it was not part of or a trading transaction then the profit made would be a capital profit and not taxable”. 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- V.S.Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd.(Bombay), 206 ITR 291 at 300, the Bombay High Court succinctly set out the tests for determining whether a loss as a result of devaluation of the Indian rupee would be allowable as a business loss. It summed up the position thus: “(i) A loss arising in the process of conversion of foreign currency which is part of the trading asset of the assessee is…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007