DCIT v. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation

84 TTJ 22Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#11817 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation

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)

…. 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. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The contentions of the assessee that the said expenses/sum becomes irrecoverable were not disputed by the Revenue Aut…

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)

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…toothbrushes for the assessee company. Any investment in such a company is justified for pure commercial considerations, and, therefore, loss on sale of such shares is admissible as business losses. In the case of DCIT Vs Gujarat Small Industries Corporation [84 TTJ 22), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was dealing with a situation in which " from the facts on record, it is obvious thct the Girnar Scooter Ltd. was floated for the same purpose as a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting" and on these facts the coordinate bench held that loss on sale of shares in subsidiary was business…

Ghcl Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6396/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…toothbrushes for the assessee company. Any investment in such a company is justified for pure commercial considerations, and, therefore, loss on sale of such shares is admissible as business losses. In the case of DCIT Vs Gujarat Small Industries Corporation (84 TTJ 22), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was dealing with a situation in which " from the facts on record, it is obvious that the Girnar 17 Scooter Ltd. was floated for the same purpose as a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting" and on these facts the coordinate bench held that loss on sale of shares in subsidiary was busin…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Zoom Entertainment Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 3385/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 4OSection 9

…toothbrushes for the assessee company. Any investment in such a company is justified for pure commercial considerations, and, therefore, loss on sale of such shares is admissible as business losses. In the case of DCIT Vs Gujarat Small Industries Corporation (84 TTJ 22), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was dealing with a situation in which " from the facts on record, it is obvious that the Girnar Scooter Ltd. was floated for the same purpose as a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting" and on these facts the coordinate bench held that loss on sale of shares in subsidiary was business…

Cosmos Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3730/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Cosmos Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O Garg R. Kumar & Associates, Cas, Circle-3(1), 7, Advocate Chambers, New Delhi. Raj Nagar District Centre, Above Dominos Pizza, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaacc6682R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-14, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Sugar. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,36,93,430/- & Income U/S 115Jb At Rs.4,01,70,500/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Statutory Notices. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 2(14)Section 37

…toothbrushes for the assessee company. Any investment in such a company is justified for pure commercial considerations, and, therefore, loss on sale of such shares is admissible as business losses. In the case of DCIT vs Gujarat Small Industries Corporation (84 TTJ 22), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was dealing with a situation in which "from the facts on record, it is obvious that the Girnar Scooter Ltd. was floated for the same purpose as a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting" and on these facts the coordinate bench held that loss on sale of shares in subsidiary was business l…

Star Gold P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2960/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, Kapur House, Erstwhile Ito 5(3)(4) Now Paranjape B Scheme Ito 5(3)(1) Aayakar Rd No.1 Near Ville Parle Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai. Mahilasangh Ville Parle (E) Mumbai-400057 Pin No.Aaics3712N Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri B.V. Javeri, Ar Revenue By .. Miss Arju Grodia, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 30-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07-07-2017

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 2nd Floor, Kapur House, Erstwhile ITO 5(3)(4) Now Paranjape B Scheme ITO 5(3)(1) Aayakar Rd No.1 near ville parle Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai. Mahilasangh Ville Parle (E) Mumbai-400057 PIN No.AAICS3712N Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri B.V. Javeri, AR Revenue by .. Miss Arju Grodia, DR Date of hearing .. 30-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 07-07-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-10, Mumbai…

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

…toothbrushes for the assessee company. Any investment in such a company is justified for pure commercial considerations, and, therefore, loss on sale of such shares is admissible as business losses. In the case of DCIT Vs Gujarat Small Industries Corporation (84 TTJ 22), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was dealing with a situation in which " from the facts on record, it is obvious that the Girnar Scooter Ltd. was floated for the same purpose as a subsidiary and later on sold off when the loss started mounting" and on these facts the coordinate bench held that loss on sale of shares in subsidiary was business…