Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax

65 ITR 403Supreme Court of India1967#9116 most cited

What is Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

A liability that has ceased to exist, such as a written-off trade creditor amount, can be brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. A business loss can also be allowed as a bad debt.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Also referred to as

B.D. Bharucha v. CIT · Section 41(1) · cessation of liability · trade creditors · bad debt · business loss · Income Tax Act

Judgments citing Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) v. Commissioner of Income-tax

R.V. Steels Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circleii(3), Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2201/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 13.06.2018
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

…existed in the case of trade creditors can as well be brought to tax u/s.41(1). This issue is similar to allowing purchase advances written off as bad debts. Reliance is placed on the judicial decisions in Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd (46 ITR 649 SC), B.D. Bharucha (65 ITR 403 SC) and Dhanalakshmi Corporation (46 ITR 1031 Madras) for this corollary. Reliance is also placed on the judicial decisions in Kamal Basha (316 ITR 58 Madras), Palkhi Investments and Trading Co P Ltd (288 CTR 473 Bombay), Suresh Kumar T Jain (128 ITD 74 Bangalore) and Asht Lakshmi Diamond and Jewellery (154 ITR 688 Mumbai) in support of bringing t…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 323/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 94/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 93/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corportation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 208/JPR/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corportation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 207/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 421/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp., Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 420/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 313/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 311/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Razak & Co. 136 ITR 825 (Guj.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. 119 ITR 380 (Bom.): Bharucha (B.D.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 65 ITR 403 (SC) 6. The Id. A/R submitted further that as per Accounting Standard 5 ‘Net Profit or Loss for the period, Prior Period Items and Change in accounting Policy' issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, prior period expense are those which arise on account of error and omission in preparation of the financial statements of one or more…

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)

…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 material available on record including case laws relied upon by the rival parties. We have observ…

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)

…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 material available on record including case laws relied upon by the rival parties. We have observ…