Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT

287 ITR 547Supreme Court of India2006#2975 most cited

What is Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT authority for?

Explanation II to Section 37 is applicable only to business expenditure and not to business losses.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT · 287 ITR 547 · SC · Section 37 · Explanation II · business loss · business expenditure · allowable deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 115BBESection 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete feeproximate nexusprohibited by lawsection 36(2)section 30section 28section 271aacchange of opinionprofits and gains of business or professiondisallowance u/s 14acapital expenditure

Judgments citing Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…Kaira Can Company Ltd. [32 DTR 485] – Regularization charges not considered penal and hence allowable. DCIT v. Bharat C. Gandhi [(2011) 46 SOT 258 (Mum).]. EON Hadapsar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [(2016) 159 ITD 532 (Pune-Trib.)] Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT [(2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC)] – Supreme Court distinguished between business loss and penal expense; Explanation to Sec.37 applies only to expenses and not to loss under ordinary business principles. 7. The CIT(A) has erred in equating municipal regularization compounding fee with a punitive penalty, which is a misapplication of Explanation 1 to section 37(1). 8. The A…

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Through Hybrid Mode Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth , Accountant Member Assessment Year 2018-19 Jayvadan ITO, Rughnathwala, Ward-1(2)(1) 6/7 Khatodara Ind Vs Surat Service Society, (Respondent) B/h. Sub Jail Katodara, Surat-395002 PAN: AAQPR4348L (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 17-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 09-08- 2024 passed by…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ove judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is respectfully stated that the ratio of the judgements which directly or indirectly rely upon the judgements of CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 3 Taxman 67/124 ITR 40 (SC) and Dr. T.A. Quereshi v CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 514/287 ITR 547 (SC) is not applicable. In the above case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the Abdul Shakoor Bros case (supra) (vii) The judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Ludhiana v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 484 (Punjab & Haryana) [09-12-2008] is on the issue of that there is no "deliberate violation of law and it was a ca…

FLAIR EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7091/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, SR. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)

…and Section 37 is a general provision for allowing the deductions of expenditure taking into consideration the business of the assessee. The exception being capital expenditure and personal expenditure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547 held that explanation II Section 37 is not applicable to the case of business loss but to business expenditure. In the instant case, the assessee paid amount to Philip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. in the month of June 2013 of Rs.1,50,66,407/- and also got the amounts till March 2014 and could not receive money of Rs.47,58,533/- owing to crash of N…

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…hri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 9– ignored by all the authorities concerned which is not justified as per laws in force. Assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of T. A. Quereshi M/s. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC) where in it was held “even though the assessee was committing a highly immoral act in illegally manufacturing and selling heroin, the case had to be decided on legal principles and not on one's own moral views." • that even not a single evidence of claims, receipts, utilization / repayments of such alleged income tax, refund receipts has bee…

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…hri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 9– ignored by all the authorities concerned which is not justified as per laws in force. Assessee relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of T. A. Quereshi M/s. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC) where in it was held “even though the assessee was committing a highly immoral act in illegally manufacturing and selling heroin, the case had to be decided on legal principles and not on one's own moral views." • that even not a single evidence of claims, receipts, utilization / repayments of such alleged income tax, refund receipts has bee…

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…95, 899/Coch/2022 (AY : 2017-18) Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT in the latter, in view of Explanation to s. 37(1). The decision in Piara Singh (supra) was distinguished and, in fact, doubted, and the decision in Dr. T. A. Quereshi v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 547 (SC) held as not good law. Reference was also made to it’s earlier decisions, viz. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC); Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC); Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC). Further, the silver bars seized being not recorded in…

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…95, 899/Coch/2022 (AY : 2017-18) Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT in the latter, in view of Explanation to s. 37(1). The decision in Piara Singh (supra) was distinguished and, in fact, doubted, and the decision in Dr. T. A. Quereshi v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 547 (SC) held as not good law. Reference was also made to it’s earlier decisions, viz. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC); Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC); Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC). Further, the silver bars seized being not recorded in…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPAN INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6451/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 14(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…and Section 37 is a general provision for allowing the deductions of expenditure taking into consideration the business of the assessee. The exception being capital expenditure and personal expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547 held that explanation II Section 37 is not applicable to the case of business loss but to business expenditure. In the 8 Span India Pvt. Ltd. instant case, the assessee paid amount to Philip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. in the month of June 2013 of Rs.1,50,66,407/- and also got the amounts till March 2014 and could not receive money of Rs.47,58,53…

SRI HARIKUTTAN T,KAYAMKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, ALLEPPEY

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

…loss incurred on account of confiscation or penalty. Such an expenditure or loss incurred for any purpose which is an offence was deemed not to have been incurred for the purpose of business or incidental to it. The decision in Dr. T.A. Qureshi vs. CIT[2006] 287 ITR 547 (SC) was held as perincuriam, and the decision in CIT vs. Piara Singh[1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) as no longer good law in view of the decision in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. (supra) and Explanation 1 to section 37(1). The similarity with the instant case is striking. The assessee incurs expenditure by way of bank interest & charges in the conduc…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSHIAPUR vs. SHRI HARPINDER SINGH GILL , HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 96

…, unless such moral principles are implicit in the scheme of legal or contractual provisions that they are required to deal with. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (SC) (2006) (287 ITR 547) in which it was held by the Hon’ble Apex court that: ‘We fully agree with the High Court that the assessee was committing a highly immoral act However, cases are to be decided by courts on legal principles and not on one’s own moral views. Law is different from morality...” 5.12 As brought out above, the legal principles in this case are plain…

JITENDRA NEMICHAND GUPTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 211/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Ammpg 2317 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. PAN No. AMMPG 2317 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 30/06/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal…

THAKORDAS PAREKH & SONS,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…e applied on such addition. Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that amendment made in Section 115BBE is not applicable in assessees case.To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon on the following case law:  Dr. T.A. Qureshi vs. CIT 287 ITR 547 (SC)  Lakhmichand Baijnnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC)  Nalinikant Ambalal Mody vs. CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC)  CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs. Shilpa dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj)  J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No.149 of 2003 (Guj)  Green Associates vs. PCIT -Tax Appeal No.1199 of 2018…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT SP. RG 27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 9045/MUM/2004[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2023AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…said illegal transaction is allowable as deduction under the provisions of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble 6 Standard Chartered Bank Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547). Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the disallowance of loss relating to RF transactions should be deleted. 12. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, strongly relied upon the order passed by the assessing officer. He also submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.95,73,750/-. 13. We heard…

THE DDIT (I.T)2(1) vs. M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8937/MUM/2004[1991-1992]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2023AY 1991-1992

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…said illegal transaction is allowable as deduction under the provisions of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble 6 Standard Chartered Bank Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547). Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the disallowance of loss relating to RF transactions should be deleted. 12. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, strongly relied upon the order passed by the assessing officer. He also submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.95,73,750/-. 13. We heard…

S N TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.77/SRT/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1st Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKCS0060R िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज"व क" ओर से / Respondent by Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-DR स…

DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Directors and other employees. He submitted that the Di…

FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Directors and other employees. He submitted that the Di…

DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Directors and other employees. He submitted that the Di…

FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS CORPORAITON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397(SC); (ii) CIT vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., 326 ITR 1(SC); (iii) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 5.2 In respect of ground No.III of appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal assessee had claimed foreign travel expenses to the tune of Rs.14,21,726/-. The aforesaid expenses were incurred for travel of Directors and other employees. He submitted that the Di…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2