Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT

23 ITR 437High Court1953#7773 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT

S.B. COTTON PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…and hence Business must be treated as part of its very existence.” In addition to the said reply reliance were made in the judgment passed by General Corporation Ltd.-vs-CIT, 3 ITR 350, CIT-Vs-Bharat Nidhi Ltd., 60 ITR 520 (PUNJ) & Inderchand Hariram-vs-CIT, 23 ITR 437 (ALL.). However, the contention made by the assessee was not accepted by the Learned AO and he thereafter made the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act aggregating to Rs.24,20,798/- and the depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act at Rs.55,808/-; the entire amount of Rs.24,76,606/- were added to the total inco…

M/S HMA DATA SYSTEMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 776/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2010-11 HMA Data Systems (P) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner G-1, RIO Grande, of Income Tax, No.7/3, Bruton Road, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. PAN: AAACH 3508D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 22.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is agains…

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 251(2)

…edly held that the lack of business activity or business income cannot be equated with no business as the same constitutes a narrow view. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following judgments: Inder Chand Hari Ram Vs CIT, Allahabad High Court, [1953] 23 ITR 437 Arkaaye Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward-2(1), New Delhi, ITAT Delhi, Income-tax Officer v. Mokul Finance (P.) Ltd, [2009] 29 SOT 11 (DELHI)(URO) L.VE. Vairavan Chettiar Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras. MADRAS High Court, 72 ITR 114 28. Further, it has also been appreciated in a number of judgments while dealing with the…

SISTAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…successful. We may refer here to the decision in L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered to look into the specific accounts and find fault with…

SISTAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3847/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…successful. We may refer here to the decision in L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered to look into the specific accounts and find fault with…

IDEAL TOLL & INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7758/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 7758/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Ideal Toll & Infrastructure DCIT 6(1) Private Limited Vs. Mumbai 410, Boomerang Chandivali Farm Road Andheri East Mumbai-400 072. PAN :AAACJ9074C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri A.K. Ghosh Department by Shri V. Justin Date of Hearing 6.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10- 10-2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-14, Mumbai and it relates to…

DOLPHIN OFFSHORE SHIPPING LTD,BELAPUR vs. ASST CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6323/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)

…fruitfully refer to the decision in the case of L. Ve. Vairavan Chettair vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1935)3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddas vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah vs. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). 8.1 However it is found that the assessee failed to file before the A.O. and the learned CIT(A) the material or evidence in respect of the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as narrated at para 5 here-in-above. Therefore, the case of t…

AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6502/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…ng period of inactivity and still the business may continue. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “It is now settled law that there may be a long period of inactivity and still the business may continue. See Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437 (All): TC12R.230, where the Allahabad High Court remarked: ‘‘It is not necessary that a business to be in existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals of inactivity and a concern may still be a going concern though it may, for some time, be quiet and dormant. The mere fact that a businessman has not been able to obtain a c…

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5216/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…ng period of inactivity and still the business may continue. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “It is now settled law that there may be a long period of inactivity and still the business may continue. See Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437 (All): TC12R.230, where the Allahabad High Court remarked: ‘‘It is not necessary that a business to be in existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals of inactivity and a concern may still be a going concern though it may, for some time, be quiet and dormant. The mere fact that a businessman has not been able to obtain a c…

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5215/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…ng period of inactivity and still the business may continue. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “It is now settled law that there may be a long period of inactivity and still the business may continue. See Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437 (All): TC12R.230, where the Allahabad High Court remarked: ‘‘It is not necessary that a business to be in existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals of inactivity and a concern may still be a going concern though it may, for some time, be quiet and dormant. The mere fact that a businessman has not been able to obtain a c…

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8945/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…ng period of inactivity and still the business may continue. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “It is now settled law that there may be a long period of inactivity and still the business may continue. See Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437 (All): TC12R.230, where the Allahabad High Court remarked: ‘‘It is not necessary that a business to be in existence should have work all the time. There may be long intervals of inactivity and a concern may still be a going concern though it may, for some time, be quiet and dormant. The mere fact that a businessman has not been able to obtain a c…

KHANDELWAL INFOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1315/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No./4119/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 वष" DCIT-2(2) Shri Arun Khandelwal Room No.545, Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Poonams,23,New India Society, 11th N.S. Road, JVPD Scheme, M.K. Road,Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Vile Parle(W),Mumbai-400 049. PAN:AHGPK 1833 N…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN KHANDELWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 4119/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No./4119/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 वष" DCIT-2(2) Shri Arun Khandelwal Room No.545, Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Poonams,23,New India Society, 11th N.S. Road, JVPD Scheme, M.K. Road,Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Vile Parle(W),Mumbai-400 049. PAN:AHGPK 1833 N…

J.P. MORGAN SERVICES INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed and Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5301/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 J.P. Morgan Services Ito Rg 8(2)(2) India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 707A, C-10 7Th Floor, 9Th Floor, B Wing, Prism Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Towers Mindspace, Bandra (E) Malad (W) Mumbai-51 Mumba-40004 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito Rg 8(2)(2) J.P. Morgan Services India P. 707A, C-10 7Th Ltd. बनाम/ Floor, Bandra 9Th Floor, B Wing, Prism Towers Vs. Kurla Complex Mindspace, Malad (W) Bandra (E) Mumba-40004 Mumbai-51. (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aabcd0503B

For Appellant: 2. It is noted that the cross objection has been filed by the assessee beyond th
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

…business expenditure, and therefore allowable as deduction u/s 30 or section 37(1). Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i)Vijay International vs. ACIT 253 ITR 26 ii)CIT vs. Western India Sea Food (F) Ltd. 199 ITR 77 iii) Juderchand Harisam vs.CIT 23 ITR 437 iv) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations 53 ITR 140 8.3. In view of the submissions of the assessee and case laws relied upon therein, Ld. CIT(A) held that these expenses were revenue in the nature and were incurred for the purpose of business, and accordingly, addition made by the AO was deleted by him. 8.4. We have gone through submissions made by bo…

Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT (23 ITR 437) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax