Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers

136 ITR 825High Court1982#1645 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers authority for?

The case is authority for principles regarding the allowance of a loss as a business deduction.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. · 136 ITR 825 · business deduction · allowance of loss · business expense

Issues it is cited on

proximate nexussection 269ssection 36(2)protective assessmentstatement under section 132(4)section 131(1a)retracted statementsource of sourcesection 269ssbusiness expediencysection 41(1)section 269

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 978/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 977/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna Legal Heir of Late Smt. Indumatiben Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 976/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

Smt. Ritaben Saketkumar Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 975/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

The ITO Ward-5(3)(1) (Previously the ACIT, Central Circle-2(2)), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna Legal Heir of Late Smt. Indumatiben Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 921/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Ritaben Saketkumar Tanna, Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 920/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…of all debtors from inception was submitted before Ld CIT[A] which is recorded at page 35 of the order of CIT[A] and no adverse comments given by the Ld AO in his Remand Report. 17.2. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Abdul Razak & Co [1982] 136 ITR 825 [Guj] held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 21 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others “The statutory provision relating to the allowance of a bad debt is not exhaustive. A debt becomes bad for purposes of deduction in the computation of total income if facts objectively considered reasonably point…

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

…s in the course of business, and on account of their irrecoverability, they were allowable as business loss to the assessee in terms of section 28 of the Act. He relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co., 136 ITR 825 (Guj). The ld.DR however, countered by stating that the fact pleaded by the ld.counsel for the assessee that the impugned amount related to the business advance, needed verification, and therefore, the matter needs to be restored back to the AO for this purpose. To this, the ld.counsel for the assessee countered by saying that all the details of…

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1290/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 80I

…, write-off of the amount would be a capital loss and not revenue loss/expenditure. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs IndenBiselers (1990) reported in 181 ITR 69 MAD), in which the advances did not result in making a capital asset? 6 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in Rs.22,36,109/- directing the Assessing Officer to treat the receipt on sale o1 (Notional) Carbon Credit as capital receipt not liable to tax without appreciating the fact that assessee is eligible to claim the cre…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1443/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…"If a deduction is not allowable as bad debt, there is no bar in claiming the loss as a business loss, if the same is incidental to carrying on of business. b. CIT, Mysore Vs. Y. V.Sreenivas Murthy, 63 ITR 306 [Mysore High Court] c. CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Products Ltd., Vs. CIT, 136 ITR 833 [Cal], e. CIT Vs. Sri. Vinayaga Pictures, 161 ITR 65 [Mad], f CIT Vs. K.MMody, 141 ITR 903 [Born], g. Bilasrai Juharmal Vs. CIT, 141 ITR 915 [Born], h. CIT Vs. Cresent Films (P) Ltd., 248 ITR 670 [Mad], i. CIT Vs. Essen (F) Ltd., 49 ITR 109 [Mad]" 16. The Id. CIT(A), after considering the…

Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, C.I.T.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35Section 92C

…d law that the advances given the course of the business are eligible for deduction under section 28 of the Act. In this regard we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abdul Razak and Co. reported in 136 ITR 825 wherein it was held as under: “On the facts of the case, the debt owed by MPM to the assessee was one which sprang directly from the business of the assessee and was allowable as a bad debt and, consequently, as a trading loss under section 28(i). Therefore, although the Tribunal was not right in holding that the advance made by the assessee to M…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2917/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2916/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2765/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…CIT(A). 66. However, while arguing against the impugned addition on account of bad debts, the Ld. counsel for the assessee before us contended that the issue has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Razak & Co., reported in 136 ITR 825 (Guj). While allowing the claim of the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if the loan was directly ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 53 from the business of the assessee, it is allowable as bad debts and consequently, a trading loss under Section 28(i) of the Act. However, every loss is n…