Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. (119 ITR 380)

Q: What is Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. authority for?

The Supreme Court has held that the Tax Recovery Officer has the power to issue a prohibitory order under Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even before the demand becomes final. This power is available when there is a certificate of arrears.

Q: How many judgments cite Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd.?

18 judgments on BharatTax cite Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. (119 ITR 380), spanning 2017 to 2024.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd. 135 ITR 200 (Mad.) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 270A, Section 28(i).

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited ), Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT, Central Circle2(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 778/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143Section 28Section 36Section 37

…il Terminal Limited] V ACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai AY 2017-18 5.9 in this respect, the appellant has relied upon some case law. However, they are not relevant in the case of appellant. In the case of CIT versus Investa industrial Corporation Ltd (1979) 119 ITR 380 (Bom) the financial position of the company being managed by the assessee deteriorated and the company went under liquidation, the assessee wrote of the principal and interest outstanding from the company in its books of accounts and claimed the same as a bad debt or business loss. Wherein the honourable High Court held if as a result of the mana…

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

…rporation 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 enter into new business of supply of packaged food items and for that purpose had advanced certain amounts to various parties as re…

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

…rporation 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 enter into new business of supply of packaged food items and for that purpose had advanced certain amounts to various parties as re…

Orchasp Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue

ITA 182/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Orchasp Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabcc4776F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/03/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)- Nfac, Relating To A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Appellate Order Passed By The Cit(A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant. 2. The Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Amount Of Investment Made Is Completely In Wholly Owned Subsidiary Company Which Is Revenue In Nature & Not A Capital Expenditure. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Accepted The Investments Written Off Of Rs.3,60,72,141/- Since The Said Amount Was Not Received From The Third Party To The Subsidiary & Thus, The Same Amount Was Written Off By The Virtue Of The Circular No. 69 Dt. 27-07-2011 Issued By Rbi.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, DR

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

…ITA 182 of 2022 Orchasp Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 ORCHASP LIMITED Vs. Dy. CIT Hyderabad Circle 1(2) PAN:AABCC4776F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri B. Yadagiri, DR Date of hearing: 13/04/2023 Date of pronouncement: 20/04/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/03/2022 of the learned CIT (A)- NFAC, r…

O3 Capital Global Advisory Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

…isory Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 22 investment made in subsidiary was to be allowed as business loss of assessee" 5.8 Reliance is further placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. reported in 119 ITR 380. 5.9 Reliance is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. reported in 370 1TR -28. 5.10 In view of the above, it is submitted that since the assessee has suffered actual losses by advancing the amounts to M/s. Morpheus Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. the loss claimed by the assessee needs t…

M/S Ace Designers Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…e off exports receivable. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed in ‘CIT VS. M/S COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD’, 370 ITR 718 (BOM.), ‘PATNAIK AND CO LTD. VS. CIT’, 161 ITR 365 (SC), ‘CIT VS. INVESTA INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD’, (1979) 119 ITR 380, ‘ADDL. CIT VS. BMS (P) LTD’, 119 ITR 321 (MAD.), ‘CIT VS. DHANDAYUTHAPATI FOUNDRY (PRIVATE) LIMITED’, 123 ITR 709 (MAD.), ‘INDIAN COMMERCIAL AND INDSUTRIES CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT’, 213 ITR 533 (MAD.), ‘CIT VS. INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE ENTERPRISES (P) 8 LTD’, 118 ITR 606 (ORISSA), ‘RAJASHTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. CIT’, 65 IT…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5202/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…d.' incurred huge losses and its entire net worth was eroded. Further, BIFR declared Ibiza as sick industrial company and therefore, the advances were written off. 5. Reliance in this regards is placed on the decisions: a. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd, (119 ITR 380) (Bombay HC) b. Vassanji Sons & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs, C1T [1980] 125 ITR 462 (Bom. HC) c. Jackie Shroff v/s. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 770 (Mumbai Trib.)” 35. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the assessee has granted advances to its subsidiary in earlier years for expansion of its existing business. The said subsidiary…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. Associate Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43BSection 73

…g advantage. Thus, the investment did not bring in an asset of a capital nature and the loss suffered by the asse.ssee was a revenue loss and not a capital loss. Further, the Bombay High Court court, in the case of CIT v. Investa Industrial Corpn. Ltd. f1979J 119 ITR 380, had also taken a similar view. Under the circumstances, the assessee's claim of debiting the loss is upheld and the disallowance made by the A.O is directed to be deleted. This Ground of Appeal is allowed.” 7. The Ld. D.R. while relying on the order of the AO submitted that the said loss has resulted from the transactions which were non genuine…