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.

How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers (136 ITR 825), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Inden Beselers (136 ITR 825)

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

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

ITA 1276/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…

Kokuyo Camlin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhkokuyo Camlin Limited Acit -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Midc, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacc1647E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…of the assessee relied upon the following case law: 1. S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (158 Taxman 74(SC). 2. CIT vs. Amalgamation (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 132(SC). 3. CIT vs. Spencers and Co. Ltd. (2014) 47 taxmann.com 55 (Madras). 4. CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (136 ITR 825). 5. CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (138 ITR 763 Kol). 6. Jackie Shroff vs. ACIT (2019) 101 taxmann.com 455 (Mum. Trib.). 7. ACIT vs. OSN Infrastructure & Projects Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 345/Del/2015). 8. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 147/Del/2010). 9. ACIT vs. Best & Cromption Engineering Ltd. [2013] 36 taxmann.com 555. 10.…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…Inden Biselers: 181 ITR 69 (Mad.)  P. Satyanarayana v. CIT: 116 ITR 803 (AP)  CIT v. H. P. Lohia: 77 Taxman 476 (Cal)  CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.: 9 Taxman 76 (Cal.)  CIT v. Sethu Film Distributors: 212 ITR 620(Mad)  CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co.: 136 ITR 825(Guj)  Salora International Ltd. v. JCIT: 129 Taxman 68 (Del.)  CIT V. Shreyans Industries Limited: 207 CTR 281 (P&H)  DCIT vs. M/s Edelweiss Capital Ltd.: ITA No: 3971/Mum/2009 (Mum ITAT)  CIT v. Claridges Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: 18 SOT 390 (Mum ITAT)  ITO v. Gokaldas Pragji: 24 ITD 25 (Ahd. ITAT)  Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Ltd. v.…

M/S Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1510/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Nortel Networks India Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-18(2), New Delhi C-227, Ground Floor, Near Garden Of Five Senses, Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aabcn1428B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ture in question could be considered as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, she relied on the following decisions: 1. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. (SC), 46 ITR 649 2. IBM World Trade Corporation Vs. CIT (Bom. HC), 186 ITR 412 3. Inden Biselers (Mad. HC), 181 ITR 69 4. Narandas Mathuradas & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom. HC), 35 ITR 460 5. Jhalani and Company Vs. CIT (Del. ITAT), 77 ITD 44 7.2 Further, in support of her claim that, no penalty could be levied where assessee discloses all the transactions, she relied on following decisions; 1. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. (P&H) 36 taxmann.com 342; 2. Comm…

Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

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

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 37

…e this amount is written off has the assessing officer raised objection and has raised question on whether such advances are bonafide. 9. Appellant further relies on the judgement of:- i. CIT V Mysore Sugars Limited 46 ITR 649 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of tr…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

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

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 37

…e this amount is written off has the assessing officer raised objection and has raised question on whether such advances are bonafide. 9. Appellant further relies on the judgement of:- i. CIT V Mysore Sugars Limited 46 ITR 649 ( Sc) ii. CIT v Abdul Razak & Co 136 ITR 825 ( Gui) 10. Further the facts of the case are identical to the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. reported in 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) wherein Hon. High Court has held as under:- 6. The facts of Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J&K) are similar to the instant case. In this case, the assessee was engaged in exploitation of forests, i.e., felling of tr…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Symphony Comforts System Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Nol. 1817/Ahd/2014 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 1896/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat S. Shah, A.R

Section 10Section 143Section 14ASection 32Section 72

…lied the material nor responded the legal notices and as evident from the account of M/s. LEEL for 01.04.07 to 31.03.09, the remaining balance of the account were written off. 16. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abdul Rajak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 has held that the debt which spring directly from the business of the assessee was allowable as a bad debt and consequently therefore, a trading loss u/s 28(1) of the Act which spring up directly from the business of the assessee even if not allowable u/s. 36(1)(vii) in view of provision of section 36(2) can still be held as allowable as a tradin…