Devi Films Private Ltd. v. CIT

116 ITR 803High Court1979#9311 most cited

What is Devi Films Private Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A loss incurred on account of a deposit becoming irrecoverable is allowable as a business loss if the deposit was made for the purpose of business.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Devi Films Private Ltd. v. CIT · business loss · irrecoverable deposit · purpose of business · allowability of loss

Judgments citing Devi Films Private Ltd. v. CIT

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal for A

ITA 8754/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

…as business loss as the lease was taken for the purpose of business. In support of these contentions, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following decisions:– i) CIT v Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. [2003]259 ITR 114 (Raj.); ii) P. Satyanarayana v/s CIT, [1979] 116 ITR 803 (A.P); and iii) CIT v Crescent Films P. Ltd., [1979] 248 ITR 670 (Mad.). 48. In view of the above, the learned A.R. submitted that claim of business loss of ` 1,25,00,000, on account of write–off of irrecoverable deposit shall be allowed. 27 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. 49. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the…

Asian Theatres Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

ITA 1505/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36

…pon the following decisions in support of his contention that loss should be allowed to him in this year: a) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohan Meakins vs. CIT, 348 ITR 109. b) Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana vs. CIT, 116 ITR 803. c) ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Ushodaya Enterprises in ITA No.1429/Hyd/2008. d) ITAT Hyderabad in the case of DCIT vs. ECI Engg. & Construction Co. in ITA No.111/Hyd/2014. e) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd, 88 ITR 192. f) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vallabhbhai Gonadhai, 221 Taxmann.38…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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)

…343 ITR 245 (Del)  Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT: 348 ITR 109 (Del)  Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 356 ITR 170 (Mad)  Devi Films Private Ltd. vs. CIT: 75 ITR 301 (Mad.)  CIT v. 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 Capi…

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…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Satish B Kaushik, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5601/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…s investment was reflected in the balance sheet and the Revenue has assessed the same u/s 143(3) of the Act vide orders dated 15-12-2008. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 803 (AP) and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of B.D.Bharucha v. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 403(SC) and submitted that the loss is allowable as bad-debt being business loss. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 7 9. We have considered the rival contention and also perused the mat…

Satish B. Kaushik, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…s investment was reflected in the balance sheet and the Revenue has assessed the same u/s 143(3) of the Act vide orders dated 15-12-2008. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 803 (AP) and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of B.D.Bharucha v. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 403(SC) and submitted that the loss is allowable as bad-debt being business loss. 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 7 9. We have considered the rival contention and also perused the mat…