How many judgments cite Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT (287 ITR 547), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 37(1), Section 115BBE, Section 132.

Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT

287 ITR 547Supreme Court of India2006#2933 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 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 147 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 37(1)Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 132(1)Section 132(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete fee proximate nexus prohibited by law section 36(2)section 30 section 28 section 271aac change of opinion profits and gains of business or profession disallowance u/s 14a capital expenditure

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

ACIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Firestorm Electronics Corp Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3538/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…

DCIT, Cr-7, Jaipur vs. Shri Anil Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 11/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT, Shri Anil Gupta Circle-7, Vs. 1, Ashok Vatika, Khatipura Road Jaipur. Jhotwara, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPG 5219 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ As…

M/S. Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2286/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 227, Okhla Indls. Estate, Central Circle-8, Phase-3, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf1183A Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Javed Akhatar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Javed Akhatar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 2286/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/s Flair Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 227, Okhla Indls. Estate, Central Circle-8, Phase-3, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACF1183A Assessee by : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCA Revenue by : Sh. Javed Akhatar, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 12.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 24.11.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…ction 28 of the Act, since such proceeds were utilised by SPV towards reclamation and rehabilitation of mining areas, as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (2006)(287 ITR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014)…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…omputing the business income under section 28 of the Act. Explanation 1 to section 37 is applicable only for business expenditure and not for business loss. The said principle has been explained in the below mentioned decisions:- Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT [2006 287 ITR 547 (SC) CIT v. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 (SC) CIT v. S.C. Kothari [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC) CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) CIT v. T.C. Reddy [2013] 356 ITR 516 (AP) Ramachandar Shivanarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC) Bipinchandra K. Bhatia v. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.107 of 2004 (Guj) 30. Though there is no specific prov…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT

Section 145Section 28Section 5

U.K. Paints India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7604/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7604/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 U.K. Paints India Ltd., Vs Acit, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Central Circle-8, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0057C Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28Section 36(2)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 7604/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 U.K. Paints India Ltd., Vs ACIT, 19, DDA Commercial Complex, Central Circle-8, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACU0057C Assessee by : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCA Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 27.11.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been…

Uday Shankar Mahawar, Kolkata vs. A.Ci.T., Circle-36, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2019[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…e carrying on the business. It was a loss which sprang directly from the carrying on of the business and was incidental to it and its deduction had to be allowed under s. 10.” 9. Also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T. A. Quereshi Vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC) has held as under (head notes): 8 Uday Shankar Mahawar, AY 2015-16 “BUSINESS LOSS - LOSS OF STOCK-IN-TRADE - IS A BUSINESS LOSS - MEDICAL PRACTITIONER - HEROIN FORMING PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE OF ASSESSEE SEIZED - ASSESSEE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT VALUE OF HEROIN SEIZED FROM GROSS INCOME AS BUSINESS LOSS - THAT POSSESSION OF HEROIN IS AN OFFENCE I…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S Redex Protech P Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 462/AHD/2002[95-96]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Xi, Ahmedabad Dated 31.12.2001 Passed For The Asstt.Year 1995- 96. On Receipt Of Notice In The Revenue’S Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Bearing No.28/Ahd/2002. Ita No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others With Co (Special Bench)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Shri P.M. Mehta and Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 255(4)Section 264Section 80I

…, then it will be against the public policy. He submitted that income tax proceedings do not have any relevance with public policy. What should be taxed is real income. He made reference to the Hon’ble Supreme court’s decision in the case of Dr.T.A. Quereshi, 287 ITR 547 (SC). Alternatively, he further contended that in the case of D. Komalkshi referred by the ld.DR, the Hon’ble Court while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee provided further opportunity for payment of taxes and entertainment of the appeal on merit. Following this decision, one more opportunity be given to the assessee for payment of taxes on…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground of appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1013/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhbank Of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8Th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2018 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma, Am These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-4, Mumbai Dated 27.11.2012 For A.Y. 2005-06 In The Matter Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Bank of India A C I T - 2(1) C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan 8th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Vs. M.K Road BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400051 PAN – AAACB0472C Appellant Respondent D C I T - 2(1) Bank of India Room No. 561, 5th Floor C-5, G Block, Star House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Vs. 8th Floor, Taxation Deptt. Mumbai 400020 BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 PAN – AAACB0472C Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri C. Naresh Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date of He…

Idl Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst), Special Range-4, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 766/HYD/1998[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Y. RatnakarFor Respondent: Shri K. Gopala Krishna, DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80H

…he raw material and the loss incurred by the assessee on setting up of the said project (which was subsequently abandoned) is a business loss. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi vs. CIT (287 ITR 547) (SC) for the proposition that business loss has to be allowed irrespective of it being in connection with illegal activity. He tried to draw the distinction between the business expenditure and business loss as brought out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case in para 17 of its order (supra). 5. The Learned Departmental Representative,…

Bharat Mine and Minerals, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

…to apply section 114 of the Evidence Act. Without prejudice, the proviso to section 37(1) cannot be invoked in the case of stock in trade and sec 37(1) applies only for expenditure specifically provided in sec 37. The Supreme court in Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (287 ITR 547) (caselaw PB page 390) in para 14, 15 & 16 of the decision has held as under: ‘’ 14. In our opinion, the High Court has adopted an emotional and moral approach rather than a legal approach. We fully agree with the High Court that the assessee was committing a highly immoral act in illegally manufacturing and selling heroin. However, cases are to…

Suri Engineers Private Limited., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4)., Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1387/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Suri Engineers Pvt. Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(4), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aaccs8544A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik

For Appellant: Shri V. JagadisanFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(3)

…elevant assessment year. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following case law: a. Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC). b. Ramchander Shivnarayan 111 ITR 263 (SC). 7 M/s Suri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. c. Dr. T.A Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547. d. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd., 55 ITR 707 (SC). e. Chenab Forest Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 (J &K). f. CIT Vs Inden Biselers 181 ITR 69 (Madras). g. Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs ACIT 65 SOT 15. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the asset being a capital asset, the capital loss cannot be allowe…

Dd Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (J.CIT)

Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 772/JP/2014 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s D.D. Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Vs. G-1/583, RIICO Industrial Area, Circle - 7, Sitapur, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACD4394D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (C.A.) jktLo dh vks…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…in tax provisions. In this regard it is stated that income-tax is not leviable on morality. The revenue is duty bound to prove the tax evasion and not to assess the income on morality as has been held in the following cases: i) Dr. T.A. Ouereshi vs CIT (2006) 287 ITR 547 (SC), copy placed in paper book: "14 We fully agree with the High Court that the assessee was committing a highly immoral act in illegally ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT manufacturing and selling heroin. However, cases are to be decided by the Court on legal principles and not on one's…

Data Infosys Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, revenue’s ground no

ITA 58/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 10ASection 35D

…further claim of Rs.1.16 crores made by the bank in the legal notice, the assessee as a matter of prudence rightly claimed the amount of Rs.66.91 lacs in the P&L A/c which is allowable as a business loss. The Supreme Court in case of Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs. CIT 287 ITR 547 has held that business loss are allowable on ordinary commercial principles in computing profit and therefore the heroine seized and confisticated as a part of stock in trade of assessee has to be allowed as a business loss. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) that the claim is not crystallised and is a contingent liability is by drawing incorr…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XII vs. Hemant Surana

ITA/181/2013HC Delhi02 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 37(1)

…s activity or the purpose, an illegal activity or purpose. The business of shares and property trading was not an illegal business under any law. 7. CIT (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in DR. T.A.QURESHI V. CIT; (2006) 287 ITR 547, held that the Explanation to ======================================================================= ITA 181/2013 Page 6 of 35 Section 37(1) was applicable in the case of business expenditure and not business loss. Th…