Devi Films (P) Ltd. v. CIT (78 ITR 176)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

…se out of the carrying on of the business and to be incidental to it. if that is established, then the deduction must be allowed, provided of course there is no prohibition against it, express or implied, in the Act.” In the case of T.J. Lalvani Vs CIT (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that loans advanced to a party whose business was financed and controlled by the assessee in the course of his business activity could not be said to be unconnected with his business and irrecoverable amount was allowable as loss. The relevant portion of the order is as under: "Now, the main question to…

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Anand vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Anand Circle Anandsojitra Road Anand. Vallabhvidyanagar 388 120 Pan : Aaace4644D 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shria.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: ShriA.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

…be said to fall on the assessee not as a person carrying on business but as owner of funds. This distinction, though fine, is very material as on it will depend whether deduction could be made under s. 10(1) or not.” In the case of T. J.LalvaniVs CIT (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) ,the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that loans advanced to a party whose business was financed and controlled by the assessee in the course of his business activity could not be said to be unconnected with his business and irrecoverable amount was allowable as loss. The relevant portion of the order is as under: “Now, the main question t…

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)

…IT 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. 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 expe…

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)

…IT 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. 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 expe…

Manoj Shivyag Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 5375/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar KalaFor Respondent: Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR)

Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…uction on account of bad debts or in alternative as a business loss. To buttress his submissions the learned AR of the assessee also relied upon the following decisions;  CIT versus Mysore Sugar Co Ltd (1946) 46 ITR 469 (SC),  T.J. Lalwani versus CIT (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom),  IBM World Trade Corporation (1990) 186 ITR 412 (Mum) and  Lord’s Dairy Farms Ltd versus CIT (1958) 27 ITR 700 (Bom). 17. Finally, the ld AR for the assessee would submit that the ld CIT(A) has not examined the alternative claim of the assessee and prayed that this issue may be restored to the file of assessing officer or ld. CIT(A) to ex…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2(1), New Delhi C/o- M.L. Garg & Co. CAs, K-60, 2nd Floor, Opp. PVR Plaza, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Circle-2(1), New Delhi Ltd., S-327, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Garg, CA Department by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2(1), New Delhi C/o- M.L. Garg & Co. CAs, K-60, 2nd Floor, Opp. PVR Plaza, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Circle-2(1), New Delhi Ltd., S-327, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Garg, CA Department by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR…

Bsi Securities International Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6992/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh SapariaFor Respondent: Ms.Pooja Swaroop

Section 50C

…iscussion, the bad debt can not be allowed as business loss. 3.3 The judicial decisions relied on by assessee's are not relevant directly as the facts in those cases were not identical to the instant case. However the decision in the case of TJ.Lahvani vs CIT 78 ITR 176 (Bom) is found to be worth discussing. Assessee in that case financed another's business by giving loans and bank guarantee to protect assessee's business. Issue decided in that case was whether the applicant is entitled to claim a deduction of Rs. 1,90,000 under s. 10(1) and/or s. 10(2)(xi) and/or s. 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act, as a bad debt or as a…

Mega Bollywood P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Mukwanal, D.R

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. No. 2822/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Mega Bollywood P. Ltd. Appellant 5-C, Swapnalok, L. Jagmohandas Marg, Mumbai Vs. ACIT, Circle-21 Respondent Mumbai PAN: AAACY 0507D अपीलाथ" की ओर से /By Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent: Shri G.N. Mukwanal, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 09.08.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: The present Appeal has…

Devi Films (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing Devi Films (P) Ltd. v. CIT