Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT

349 ITR 250High Court2012#3622 most cited

What is Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT authority for?

An amount not allowed as a deduction under a specific section can still be considered a business loss if it was incurred for business purposes.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT · business loss · unallowable deduction · section 37 · section 143(3) · section 115JB

Also reported as

80 DTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 234BSection 115JBSection 143(3)Section 37Section 115JAASection 144CSection 144C(10)Section 234D

Issues it is cited on

section 144(3)section 158asection 35(1)(ii)section 44csection 80ia(8)section 144c(10)section 115jaasection 42section 35(1)section 32(1)(iia)section 36(2)mat credit

Judgments citing Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…at when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-…

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…at when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-…

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…at when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 710/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…No.426 & 710/Bang/2023 Page 27 of 39 excess material is drawn. It was his claim that it is not a bad that but a business loss. He further referred to judicial precedent placed at page number 110 of the case law compilation and also relied on the decision of 349 ITR 250 [ Bom] in case of Harshad J Chokshi. The learned authorised representative also referred to page number 9 – 11 comprising in paragraph number m – r of the written submission. 35. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities. It was submitted that the reasons given by the learned CIT – A…

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 426/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…No.426 & 710/Bang/2023 Page 27 of 39 excess material is drawn. It was his claim that it is not a bad that but a business loss. He further referred to judicial precedent placed at page number 110 of the case law compilation and also relied on the decision of 349 ITR 250 [ Bom] in case of Harshad J Chokshi. The learned authorised representative also referred to page number 9 – 11 comprising in paragraph number m – r of the written submission. 35. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities. It was submitted that the reasons given by the learned CIT – A…

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…r section 28 of the Act itself. The deductions are not exhaustive and profits are to be determined on the basis of ordinary commercial principles The aforesaid principle has been followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad Choksi vs. CIT (349 ITR 250), wherein the Hon'ble Court allowed a deduction of advances made during the course of regular business activity and held that the expression "profits and gains" is to be understood in its ordinary commercial meaning and what has to be brought to tax is the net amount earned by carrying on professional business. M/s. Patel Engineering Limited 97.…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2387/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A
Section 10Section 14A

…ng decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs.7,82,259/- the ld. Counsel submits that in the financial year 2007-08 the assessee was proposing to en…

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A
Section 10Section 14A

…ng decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs.7,82,259/- the ld. Counsel submits that in the financial year 2007-08 the assessee was proposing to en…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BHARAT INFRA TECH (P)LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1443/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…f T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 323 ITR 397. The assessee-company also made alternative to submission that if not as a bad debt the same should be allowed as a business loss after placing reliance on the following decisions. "a. Harshad J Choksi Vs. CIT, 80 DTR 20 [Born]; wherein the Hon 'ble Court has held that "If a deduction is not allowable as bad debt, there is no bar in claiming the loss as a business loss, if the same is incidental to carrying on of business. b. CIT, Mysore Vs. Y. V.Sreenivas Murthy, 63 ITR 306 [Mysore High Court] c. CIT Vs. Abdul Razak & Co., 136 ITR 825 [Guj] d. Tar & bitumen Produc…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-005804-005804 - 2022Supreme Court25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…“36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28— *** 4 (2010) 13 SCC 532. 5 1963 (2) SCR 976. 6 2012 (348) ITR 109 (Del). 7 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8 1990 (186) ITR 412 (Bom). 6 (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to…

AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 786/Hyd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax, Hyderabad Central Circle-1(2), [PAN No. AABCA7366H] Hyderabad अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, AR राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Shri Solgy Kottaram, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement…

YATRA ONLINE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL)-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 312/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…sits would clear fall within the ambit of a trading loss allowable under section 28 of the Act. Either way, this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harshad J Choksi vs CIT reported in 349 ITR 250 (Bom). We find that the Ld.PCIT had observed that the assessee had not offered any income in respect of these advances in earlier years in terms of section 36(2) of the Act and hence, the claim of bad debts allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. We find that the Ld.PCIT has proceeded on an assumption that these are trade debts. Factually,…

M/S DIVYA SREE HOLDING P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Divyasree Chambers, Central, Bengaluru. ‘O’ Shaugnessy Road, 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 025. Central Circle – 2[3], Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacd 6970 H : Assesseee By Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 12.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.1.2021 O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)Section 40Section 44A

…ion while computing income from the business and was rightly allowed as a deduction by the AO. In support of the claim of the assessee, the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT 80 DTR 20 (Bom). In the aforesaid decision, the assessee was a stock broker and he wrote off a sum of Rs.47.58 lakhs as Bad Debt due to the breach committed by 3 members of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The claim was disallowed by the AO for the reason that under section 36(2) of the Act, a debt which is claimed as a Bad Debt ought to have been offered to tax a…

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…then, the same on the said standalone basis cannot jeopardise its entitlement towards claim for deduction of the same as a business loss u/s 37 of the Act. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom), had an occasion to deal with the issue, that where an amount is held to be not deductible as a bad debt in view of non- compliance of the conditions precedent as provided u/s 36(2), then could the same be considered as an allowable business loss. The Hon‘ble High Court while answering the said issue, had observed that non-satisfaction of t…

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…then, the same on the said standalone basis cannot jeopardise its entitlement towards claim for deduction of the same as a business loss u/s 37 of the Act. In fact, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom), had an occasion to deal with the issue, that where an amount is held to be not deductible as a bad debt in view of non- compliance of the conditions precedent as provided u/s 36(2), then could the same be considered as an allowable business loss. The Hon‘ble High Court while answering the said issue, had observed that non-satisfaction of t…

ACIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHCIL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…written off. the loss is required to be allowed as a business loss under section 28. as the same has arisen in the normal course of carrying on broking business. The Assessee relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: Harshad Choksi v CIT (349 ITR 250) (Bom.) In the said case, the assessee a stock and share broker sought to write off an amount of Rs. 47.58 lakhs as bad debts, due to breach committed by three members of the Bombay Stock Exchange, The Assessing Officer held that the assesse was not entitled to claim the benefit of bad debts as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions prece…

SHCIL SERVICE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…written off. the loss is required to be allowed as a business loss under section 28. as the same has arisen in the normal course of carrying on broking business. The Assessee relies on the following decisions for the above proposition: Harshad Choksi v CIT (349 ITR 250) (Bom.) In the said case, the assessee a stock and share broker sought to write off an amount of Rs. 47.58 lakhs as bad debts, due to breach committed by three members of the Bombay Stock Exchange, The Assessing Officer held that the assesse was not entitled to claim the benefit of bad debts as the assessee had not satisfied the conditions prece…

M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 3796/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…relief to him on another ground is justified, it would be open to the Department and the Tribunal and indeed they would be under a duty to grant that relief. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT, 349 ITR 250, he submitted that where the amount was disallowed as bad debt u/s 36(2), the assessee can claim for deduction as business loss u/s 28. It was held that there is no bar in claiming a loss as business loss if it is incidental to carrying on of a business. The fact that the conditions for deduction as bad debt were not satisfied by the assessee wou…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Range-15, 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Circle 21(1), Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, House Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd April, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-11, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. Ita No.3796/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 138

…relief to him on another ground is justified, it would be open to the Department and the Tribunal and indeed they would be under a duty to grant that relief. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT, 349 ITR 250, he submitted that where the amount was disallowed as bad debt u/s 36(2), the assessee can claim for deduction as business loss u/s 28. It was held that there is no bar in claiming a loss as business loss if it is incidental to carrying on of a business. The fact that the conditions for deduction as bad debt were not satisfied by the assessee wou…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAMA CYLINDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7337/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Cylinders Pvt. Income Tax- 3(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor 181, Maker Tower, Aayakar Bhavan “E”, Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccr8653D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…fore us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.” 4.4. We also find that the ld. AR had placed reliance on yet another decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harshad J Chokshi vs CIT reported in 349 ITR 250 (Bom) wherein it was held as under:- “10. Our opinion is sought on the issue, whether if an amount is held to be not deductible as a bad debt, in view of non compliance of the condition precedent as provided under Section 36(2) of the Act, could the same be considered as a allowable business loss. The Tribunal in its order dated 19.12.1994 has n…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT (349 ITR 250) — Cited in 33 Judgments | BharatTax