Indian Commerce and Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

213 ITR 533High Court1995#13794 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Indian Commerce and Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

JAKHAU SALT COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, Of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.01.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…of their claim for deduction of the write off of investments made for the purpose of the business. (i). ACE designers Ltd v ACIT 275 Taman 100 (Kar.) (ii). CIT v Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 370 ITR 728 Born. (iii). Indian Commerce and Industries Co P Ltd 213 ITR 533 Mad. (iv). Patnaik and Co Ltd. 161 ITR 365 SC. 18. On a perusal of these cases, the common ratio is that loss on investments made for the purpose of the business is allowable as a revenue loss. 19. In the case of ACE Designers Ltd. vs. ACIT (LTU) reported in 120 Taxman.com 321, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- "7. In the b…

M/S SOUTHERN TPETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPRATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &
Section 115JSection 143Section 263

…f their claim for deduction of the write off of investments made for the purpose of the business. (i). ACE designers Ltd v ACIT 275 Taman 100 (Kar.) (ii). CIT v Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd 370 ITR 728 Born. (iii). Indian Commerce and Industries Co P Ltd 213 ITR 533 Mad. (iv). Patnaik and Co Ltd. 161 ITR 365 SC. 18. On a perusal of these cases, the common ratio is that loss on investments made for the purpose of the business is allowable as a revenue loss. M/s.SPIC Ltd. :: 15 :: 19. In the case of ACE Designers Ltd. vs. ACIT (LTU) reported in 120 Taxman.com 321, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held…

SESHASAYEE PAPER AND BOARDS LTD.,ERODE vs. DCIT NAMAKKAL CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 2835/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 243Section 244Section 244A

…ments made in Ponni Sugars (Orissa) Ltd., which are reproduced in para 8 above. He reiterated the submissions made before AO and CIT(A). He also relied on the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Indian Commerce & Industries Co. (P) Ltd., vs. CIT 213 ITR 533, CIT vs. Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corp. Ltd., 394 ITR 255 and Electronic Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., vs. DCIT, 417 ITR 283. 10. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar argued that the investments made in equity capital, non convertible debentures, zero coupon redeemable preference shares cannot be held as revenue for th…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 976/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…siness and accordingly any loss on sale of such shares should be treated as business loss and not loss under the head capital gain and capital loss. vii. Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Indian Commerce and Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 533. viii. Commissioner of Income-tax.v.Gillanders Arbuthnot 8, Co. Ltd. [1982) 9Taxman76 (Cal.) Section 28, read with section 36(2), of the Income-tax Acf, 1961 — Business loss—Besides being engaged in various other business activities, assessee-company also financed or advanced loans to its subsidiary companies—Assessee purchased shares of one of i…

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1042/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIR-D.R. &
Section 143(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

…siness and accordingly any loss on sale of such shares should be treated as business loss and not loss under the head capital gain and capital loss. vii. Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Indian Commerce and Industries Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1995) 213 ITR 533. viii. Commissioner of Income-tax.v.Gillanders Arbuthnot 8, Co. Ltd. [1982) 9Taxman76 (Cal.) Section 28, read with section 36(2), of the Income-tax Acf, 1961 — Business loss—Besides being engaged in various other business activities, assessee-company also financed or advanced loans to its subsidiary companies—Assessee purchased shares of one of i…

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

…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 ITR 112 (RAJ), ‘BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO.224/2013 DATED 24.07.2015 (PUNJAB AND HARYANA), ‘SAHARA GLOBAL VISIION PVT LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2514/DEL/2014 DATED 30.08.2018…

M/S. STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 115JSection 35

…idiary. Thus, the commercial expediency having been established, no disallowance can be made in terms of section 36(1)(iii). In this context, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Indian Commerce & Industries Co. (P) Ltd. v/s CIT, [1995] 213 ITR 533 (Mad.). He, therefore, submitted no disallowance out of interest expenditure can be made. As far as the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing deduction under section 57(iii), learned Authorised Representative submitted, in assessment year 2002–03, assessee had agreed for deduction under section 57(iii) as there was sufficie…