Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT

349 ITR 250High Court2012#3617 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 366,418 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
Read the full judgment

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

Centrum Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4120/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Centrum Broking Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T., 4(1)(1) Centrum House, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Cst Road, Vidyanagari Marg, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. Pan/Gir No.Aabca 1498 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the documents filed by
Section 143(3)

…has incurred in the course of business of the company and therefore should be allowed as a business loss. Reliance is placed on following decisions: a. Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt Ltd. - 98 ITR 50 (Bom), b. BadridasDaga - 34 ITR 10 (SC). c. Harshad Choksi - 349 ITR 250 (Bom), d. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd - 3213/Mum/2009 (now known as M/s Nicholas Piramal Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd). 7. It was argued by the ld. AR that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC) has held that "the loss by embezzlement must be deemed to have occurr…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6291/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ry course of its business and the other party could not fulfil its business commitment and hence it should be allowed as business loss. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8.2 On the second issue , it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that Leave & License agreement for taking commercial premises bearing number 501-601, Durga Chambers, 278/E, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 on leave and licence basis was entered into by the assessee with wives of Directors of the assessee company agains…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6196/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ry course of its business and the other party could not fulfil its business commitment and hence it should be allowed as business loss. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8.2 On the second issue , it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that Leave & License agreement for taking commercial premises bearing number 501-601, Durga Chambers, 278/E, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 on leave and licence basis was entered into by the assessee with wives of Directors of the assessee company agains…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6195/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ry course of its business and the other party could not fulfil its business commitment and hence it should be allowed as business loss. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8.2 On the second issue , it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that Leave & License agreement for taking commercial premises bearing number 501-601, Durga Chambers, 278/E, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 on leave and licence basis was entered into by the assessee with wives of Directors of the assessee company agains…

Tips Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6194/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ry course of its business and the other party could not fulfil its business commitment and hence it should be allowed as business loss. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 8.2 On the second issue , it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that Leave & License agreement for taking commercial premises bearing number 501-601, Durga Chambers, 278/E, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 on leave and licence basis was entered into by the assessee with wives of Directors of the assessee company agains…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Sl.No CASE LAWS ON BUSINESS LOSS/TRADING LOSS Page No 41 Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) 257-262 42 CIT Vs. Mysore Sugar Co Ltd 46 ITR 651 (SC) 263-266 43 CIT Vs. Y V Sreenivasa Murthy 63 ITR 306 (Kar) 267-269 44 Harshad J Choksi Vs. CIT 349 ITR 250 (Bom) 270-272 46 Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC) 278-283 51. A brief discussion of some of the case laws selected from the above List is given below:- 52. On the concept of taxability of “real income” under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on the principles of which there is no quarrel, are cited be…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Sl.No CASE LAWS ON BUSINESS LOSS/TRADING LOSS Page No 41 Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) 257-262 42 CIT Vs. Mysore Sugar Co Ltd 46 ITR 651 (SC) 263-266 43 CIT Vs. Y V Sreenivasa Murthy 63 ITR 306 (Kar) 267-269 44 Harshad J Choksi Vs. CIT 349 ITR 250 (Bom) 270-272 46 Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC) 278-283 51. A brief discussion of some of the case laws selected from the above List is given below:- 52. On the concept of taxability of “real income” under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on the principles of which there is no quarrel, are cited be…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Chatrapati Sambhaji Raje Sakhar Udyog Ltd., Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 163/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Modi
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…ee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering various decisions including the decisions rendered in the cases of Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 348 ITR 109 (Delhi) and Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT reported as 25 taxmann.com 567 (Bom.): 349 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that the advances given by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure. We do not find any error in the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. We h…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Bharat Infra Tech (P)Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the issues in the Cross Objections raised have become infructuous and dismissed as such

ITA 1442/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40A(3)

…de alternative to submission that if not as ITA Nos. 1442 & 1443/Bang/2014 & C.O. Nos. 211 & 212/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 12 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 Product…

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 5(2), Mumbai vs. C.A. India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 17/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Shri Ravi SawnnaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे एवं शि"जीत डे शि"जीत डे, "याियक शि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.17/Mum/2012 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण व…

M/S. Link Legal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6740/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Link Legal, 207, Lawyers Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Delhi. Gir/Pan : Aabfl6757A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Link Legal, 207, Lawyers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi Delhi. GIR/PAN : AABFL6757A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Shailender Bajaj, CA Respondent by Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.05.2016 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 14/10/2013 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A…

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Axiom Share Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Income Tax Officer-1(1)- Vs. M/S. Axiom Share Broking Pvt. Ltd., 819/820, 8Th Floor, P. J. (1), Room No.534/579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Towers, Stock Exchange, Mumbai 400 020 Samachar Marg, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aafca 0309 Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM The Income Tax Officer-1(1)- Vs. M/s. Axiom Share Broking Pvt. Ltd., 819/820, 8th Floor, P. J. (1), Room No.534/579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Towers, Stock Exchange, Mumbai 400 020 Samachar Marg, Mumbai 400 020 PAN: AAFCA 0309 Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by Sri A. Ramchandran, DR Respondent by Ms. Aarti Vissanji, AR Date of hearing 09-06-2016 Date of pronouncement 15-06-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-1, Mumbai p…

Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 10(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 785/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Crisil Risk & Infrastructure Acit (Osd) 10(1) Solutions Ltd.,Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Crisil Market Wire Ltd.,Crisil Mumbai-400020 Vs. House, Central Avenue Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcc4655M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Aliasger Rampurawala & Ms. Anusha Singh (Ar) Ms. Sudha Chandran (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 04/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 25/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 22 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 15.11.2013 Passed Against

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 40

…business loss incurred during the course of business and should be therefore, allowed as such and in support of this proposition reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High 4 Crisil Risk & Infr… Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT 349 ITR 250 (Bom). 3.3. We have considered the facts of the case as well as claim of the assessee made before us. It is noted by us that genuineness of these expenses and the claim made by the assessee has not been doubted by the lower authorities. The only ground to reject the claim by both of the lower authorities was that these items were not deductable…