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

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 3126/AHD/2013[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. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1966/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1385/AHD/2012[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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 442/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2007-08

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 441/AHD/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2004-05

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…

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3254/AHD/2011[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…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 722/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2006-07

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-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2489/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2005-06

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 Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 118/AHD/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2002-03

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…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…off in the books of account and should be allowed as “business ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Guj…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…off in the books of account and should be allowed as “business ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Guj…

Foxconn India Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2118/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2118/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Foxconn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Nokia Telecom Sez, Company Circle-2(1), बनाम/ Sipcot Industrial Park Chennai-600 034. Vs. Chennai-Bangalore National Highway Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-9390-F (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…se was that the deposits were merely advances in normal course of business which became irrecoverable and hence written-off. Such claims are allowable as business losses in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Inden Bisellers (181 ITR 69) wherein it was held that loss of such advances would be allowable as trading loss. Drawing strength from the same, we direct Ld. AO to allow the deduction of the same. This ground stand allowed. 6. So far as the valuation of inventories is concerned, we find that the assessee was following recognized method of valuation of closing stock i.e. lowe…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2014/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2013/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2012/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Epc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2011/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1740/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1604/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…le the same should be allowed as deduction as revenue loss if not as bad debts as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Devi Films Private Ltd vs. CIT, 75 ITR 301 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co, 136 ITR 825. In the light of the above facts, the grounds of appeal 2.3 and 2.4 filed by ITA Nos.1604-1740-2011—14-2744/16 :- 26 -: the Revenue has no merits, hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 41. Grounds of appeal 2.5 to 2.7 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s.14A of the Act on the ground that in th…

M/S. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2479/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2479/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 4(1), Kolkata 8, B.B.D. Bag (East), Dalhousie Square, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 6748 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 2, Kolkata Dated 16.11.2018 Passed In Case No.10418/Cit(A)-2/17-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2479/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata 8, B.B.D. Bag (East), Dalhousie Square, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 6748 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, JM This assessee…

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…inary course of business and are covered u/s 37(1) of the income tax act 1961. As well as the aforesaid expenses are held allowable u/s 37(1) of the IT A 1961 in various judgments provided by the High Court, one of the whom is mainly [CIT vlnden Bislers(1990) 181 ITR 69(Mad)].” 5.5 The further legal submission made by the assessee in support of the claim of the above advances and deposits written off, as reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A), is extracted as under: “1.8 That the LAO in making the all the additions/disallowances while framing the impugned assessment, has also erred in law by ignoring the principal establi…