CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

330 ITR 440High Court2011#830 most cited

What is CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. authority for?

Interest income is taxable under the mercantile system of accounting even if it is not actually recovered, provided there is a right to receive it. The decision also touches upon the treatment of bad debts and provisions for doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia).

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd · section 145 · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive · section 36(1)(viia) · bad debts · interest income · real income theory · section 43D

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 169238 CTR 142

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 1961Section 115JBSection 43DSection 145Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

section 43dreal income theorysection 36(1)(viia)right to receivesection 45mercantile system of accountingsection 36(1)(vii)section 36(1)(iii)section 41section 43section 30section 36(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

D.C.I.T Cir - 8, Kolkata. vs. M/S Medpat Finance Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 625/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Circle-8, Kolkata Vs. M/S. Medpat Finace Limited Pan: Aaccm 0685L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C Das,JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…est income from Guru Mehar Construction ignoring completely the submissions of the assessee as stated supra. On first appeal, the Learned CITA by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd reported in 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) held that the prudential norms prescribed by RBI with regard to income recognition are to be mandatorily followed by the assessee being a NBFC and further going by the concept of ‘real income’ theory where in the instant case, even the receipt of principal is doubtful of recovery, the question of recovery of interest does not arise and ac…

DCIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Diamond 'R' Us, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 276/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263

…e Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India and the definition of service given in the SEZ Act, 2005, which overrides the word ‘…

Diamonds ' R'Us, Mumbai vs. CIT -III, Mumbai

In the result, CO No. 276/Mum/2014 as well as ITA No

ITA 2793/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Srivastava
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 263

…e Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, reported in the case of 211 CTR 369 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., reported in 238 CTR 142 (Delhi), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24- 3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India and the definition of service given in the SEZ Act, 2005, which overrides the word ‘…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Vaish Co-Operative Adarsh Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is

ITA 3310/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Danday, ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Bhatt, Advocate
Section 80P(2)(a)

…erest would be said to have accrued to the assessee on the loans of doubtful recovery and the assessee also relied on various case laws some of which are as under:- (1) CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 (SC) [1962] (2) CIT Vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), 2011 (3) DIT Vs Brahmaputra Capital Financial Services Ltd, 335 ITR 182 (Delhi), 2011 (4) TRO Vs Custodian, 293 ITR 369 (Del) (5) Barkha Investment & Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, 281 ITR 31 (Guj) (6) CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd. 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhand) (7) CIT vs Elgi Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 357 (Mad) (8) CIT Vs Motor Credit Co P Ltd, 127 ITR 5…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…provisions of all other Acts as has been held in the following decisions: - TRO v Custodian, Special Court Act, 1934: 293 ITR 369 (SC) - CIT v India Equipment Leasing Ltd: 293 ITR 350 (Mad) - CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd: 293 ITR 357 (Mad) - VasisthChayVyapar Ltd: 330 ITR 440 (Del) - DCIT vs. BhartiyaSamruddhi Finance Ltd.: 58 SOT 141 (Del) 22.10 In view of the above, it is patently clear that the appellant prepares its annual accounts in accordance with the applicable laws, including provisions of the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme), Rules, 2001 and is not required to and has not been strictly prepari…