DCIT v. Venkateshwar Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

93 ITD 177Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16237 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2018.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Venkateshwar Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. M.K.J. Developers Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1927/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1927/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S Mkj Developers Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcm 7076 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 73

…7-08 i.e the year under appeal before us, the assessee’s interest income is less than other income. The ld AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Venkateswar Investment and Finance Ltd reported in 93 ITD 177 (Kol SB) which had held as under:- “What constitutes the ‘principal business’ has not been defined anywhere in the Act. Therefore, what constitutes principal business will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The memorandum and articles of association of the company, past history of the company, current deployment of the capital of…

ITO, WD-12(3), Kolkata vs. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri N.K.Poddar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Gautam M.Bavishi,FCA

Section 73Section 73(1)

…is granting of loans and advances and the provisions of explanation to section 73 will not apply in such cases. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Special Bench (Kolkata) of ITAT in the case of DClT vs. Venkateshwar Investment & finance (P) Ltd. 93 ITD 177 (Cal.) (SB) where it was held as under- "What constitutes the ''principal business" has not been defined anywhere in the Act. What constitutes the principal business will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The memorandum and the articles of association of the company, past history of the assessee, current and past year's deploymen…

G.M.Holdings (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2736/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Patra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 73

…g of loans and advances and accordingly would fall under the exception to Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. It also placed reliance on the special bench decision of this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Venkateshwar Investment & Finance Pvt Ltd reported in 93 ITD 177 (Kol) (SB), wherein it was held that :- “What constitutes the principal business has not been defined anywhere in the Act. Therefore, what constitutes principal business will depend on other facts and circumstances of each case. The Memorandum & Articles of Association of the company, past history of the company, current deployment of the capital…

Puja Agencies P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5688/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.R. Singh (DR)

Section 220(2)Section 73

…filed 2nd appeal before the ITAT, ITAT restored the issue to the file of AO holding that the issue should be decided in accordance with the ratio laid down by Special Bench of Calcutta Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Venkateshwar Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (93 ITD 177) after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The AO while giving effect to the order of ITAT observed that assessee filed statement showing utilization of funds from AY-1999-2000 to AY 2003-04. The perusal of utilization fund for AY 2001-02 reveals that assessee utilized found of Rs. 1,41,65,901/- towards the loan and advances and amount…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rbg Investment & Finance Ltd

ITA/323/2010HC Delhi30 Oct 2012

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 361(1)(iii)Section 73

…ITA 323/2010 Page 3 of 4 Tribunal referred to an order of a Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Venkateshwara Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (93 ITD 177) and held as under: - “4.2 The Ld. A.R. also drawn our attention to the audited balance sheet of the company wherein deployment of funds for various activities like investment in shares as well as loans and advances, were indicated, which clearly reveals that loans and advances were much more than the investment in shares. Keeping in vi…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Front Line Securities Limited

Appeal is dismissed accordingly

ITA/1007/2008HC Delhi26 Aug 2010

Bench: The Assessing Officer As To Whether This Loss Was A Business Loss Or Speculative Loss. According To The Ao, The Case Of The Assessee Falls Within The Provisions Of Explanation To Section 73 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) & Treating The Said Loss To

Section 18Section 73

…e was placed on the decision of the Delhi bench f the ITAT in the case of NBI Industrial Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2004) 1 SOT 132 (Del); and on the decision of Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Venkateshwar Investment & finance Pvt. Ltd. 93 ITD 177 (Cal) (SB). It was explained that he lease rent and the interest has to be taken together for establishing the principal business of the assessee. Relevant paras of both the orders of the Tribunal (supra) were also read by the learned counsel by which it was held that for the purpose of considering that explanation to Section 73 is applicab…