CIT v. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.

243 ITR 529High Court2000#7795 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 46A Section 68

Issues it is cited on

company total income business document

Judgments citing CIT v. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5945/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Circle-7(1), 14-C, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6 Tilak Marg, Pin 1100 02 New Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pan No. Aabcd7933P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, SumitFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…ourt came to the conclusion that the assessee had closed business because it had not 'established an intention to resume it'. Such is not the circumstances obtaining in the present case. This case had been applied in CIT v. Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 529 (Mad.) where it has been pithily noted that maintenance and establishment is the indication of intention to resume business. In Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 1 (Brn.) it was noted that there were two periods of activity which was indicative that the business was nevertheless continued. We are in complete agreement with the view take…

DIVYANIDHI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

…e expenses claimed are related to business and were essential to keep business running. The expenses meet criteria of allowability provided w/s 36 and various judicial pronouncement. Reliance is placed on following cases: i) C.I.T. vs. Kriti Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 243 ITR 529 (HPHC) ii) C.I.T. vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. 201 ITR 498 iii) C.I.T. vs. L VE. Vairavan Chettiar 72 ITR 114. iv) Arkaaye Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), (ITA No. 3552/Del/2011) DELHI BENCH "SMC": NEW DELHI In the case of Sarabhai Management Corpn. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 25 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that t…

BIJUL PHARMACHEM PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2 (1)91), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7565/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…business. Subsequently, commission for sale of pharma products was earned by the appellant co. for A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. The appellant further supports its case on the basis of under mentioned decisions. 5 (i) CIT-vs-Vellore Electric Corporation, 243 ITR 529 (Mud)/ 113 Taxman 236 (Madras) 03&04 (ii) CIT-vs-Anita Jain, 182 Taxman 173, (Delhi) 05&06 (iii) Atul Babubhai Shah-vs-JCIT, 116 taxniann.com 966 07 to 19 (iv) Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society Ltd. -vs-DCIT, 20 to 42 1731TD 313 (Pane)/ 98 taxmann.com 419 (Pane - Trib.) The appellant accordingly submits that as the business of the a…

M/S. SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…Act till it is wound up. Therefore, some staff will have to be maintained. It cannot be said that the business has come to an end. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.[2000] 243 ITR 529 (Mad) and a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in CIT v. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 498 (Cal). 13. Therefore, once the company is in existence the assessee can seek depreciation. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the first proviso of s. 32(2) is totally misplaced. Therefore, as far as question No. 1 is concerned the same i…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI AUTOMOBILES & GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1838/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 18

…stly, Rs.3384/- was received by the assessee on account of interest on income-tax refund. 4. Learned CIT(A) considered all these facts and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd., 243 ITR 529 held that there is a difference between ‘lull in business’ and ‘going out of business’ and a temporary discontinuance of business may in certain circumstances give rise to an inference that the business is going through a lean period of transaction but it could be revive if proper circumstances arrive. Besides this, learned CIT(A) further found t…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI AUTO & GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1837/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 18

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…Court came to the conclusion that the assessee had closed business because it had not 'established an intention to resume it'. Such is not the circumstance obtaining in the present case. This case has been applied in CIT v. Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 529 (Mad.) where it has been pithily noted that maintenance and establishment is the indication of intention to resume business. In Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 1 (Born.) it was noted that there were two periods of activity before and after the interregnum or period of inactivity which was indicative that the business was nevertheless…

M/S. MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1776/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1776/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.M. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Dua

…ion support the contention of the Assessee that intention of the Assessee is not to go out of business but Assessee is fighting legal battle for restoration of it's licence to resume its business. M. In the case of CIT Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. - 243 ITR 529 (MAD). Said Assessee was private electric company. Its undertaking vested with the State Government due to enactment of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1973. Said Assessee challenged validity of that Act in the Supreme Court. The Assessee claimed expenditure on salary paid to employees and other expenses. Hon'ble…

DCIT, CC- 7(1), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC SHARES AND STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2884/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Dcit Cc 7(1) Vs. M/S. Classic Shares & Room No.653, 6Th Floor Stock Broking Services Ayakar Bhavan, Ltd., 1St M.K.Road, 121, Floor, Radha Mumbai – 400 020 Bhavan Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Pan/Gir No. Aaccc5745P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…a) another concern of Ketan Parekh Group in which similar claim was made by the assessee that business was in existence and not closed. The Tribunal following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT v. Vellore Electrical Corporation Ltd. (243 ITR 529) held that the business had not closed and the claim of expenditure had to be allowed. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal we hold that the business of the assessee had not been closed in the relevant year and, therefore, FDRs had to be treated as pledged in connection with the business which was in existence and. therefore,…

CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1617/MUM/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…s followed the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s KNP Securities (P) Ltd (ITA No.5008 & 5009/Mum/2007), which in turn had relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd (243 ITR 529). Identical view was taken in the assessee’s own case in AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 (ITA No.191/Mum/2008 and ITA No.1135/Mum/2008 dated 19-11-2010). In AY 2002-03 and 2003-04, it has been noted down by the Tribunal that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been received in subsequent years and hence it was held that the business of the assessee was…

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 40, MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2280/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2280/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Classic Shares & Stock Tax Central Cir-40, Room Broking Services Ltd., Vs. No.653, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhupen Chambers, Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai- Ground Floor, 400020 9, Dalal St.Fort, Mumbai-400023 "थायी लेखा सं./Tan : Aabcs4255R

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “सी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2280/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s Classic Shares and Stock Tax Central Cir-40, Room Broking Services Ltd., Vs. No.653, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhupen Chambers, Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai- Ground floor, 400020 9, Dalal St.Fort, Mumbai-400023 "थायी लेखा सं./TAN : AABCS4255R अपीलाथ" ओर से / Revenue by Dr.P.Danial, Standing Counsel ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assessee by None सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date…

PANTHER FINCAP & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in quantum) is dismissed, and that challenging the levy of penalty u/s

ITA 2374/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2849/Mum/2008 & & 2374/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Panther Fincap & Management Services Asst. Cit, Central Circle 40, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 3045 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…he Tribunal, he continued, in the case of KNP Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 5008 and 5009/Mum/2007 dated 29.5.2009), in which the years involved were A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05, held, relying on CIT vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 529 (Mad)), that the assessee could not be, for the reason that SEBI had passed an order barring the assessee to do business activity, said to have discontinued business and, accordingly, the expenditure on the maintenance of its establishment would be deductible, i.e., in computing its business income. The final closure/discontinuance, it opined, co…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RANJANA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2349/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132Section 23(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. H. S. Sidhu, JM ITA No. 2346/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs Smt. Amita Garg, Tax, Central Circle-12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADPG0990L CO No. 255/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Smt. Amita Garg, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income G-15, Maharani Bagh, Tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADPG0990L ITA No. 2347/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs Smt…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. AMITA GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department and the Cross

ITA 2346/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Sh. Sunilchand Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132Section 23(1)(a)