IRF Ltd. v. CIT

325 ITR 24High Court2010#17662 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

speculation losssection 43(5)section 153a(1)(a)interest free advancesinterest u/s 234badvance taxsection 153a(1)section 145(3)search assessmentsection 115jregular assessmentdisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing IRF Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 321/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…ssee for the previous years is to be allowed. In this regard we placed reliance is being placed upon by the Ld. AR by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IRF Ltd. Vs CIT, 190 taxmann 391, and in the case of CIT Vs. Omprakas B. Selecha, [2010] 325 ITR 24 (Bombay). 5.3 Therefore considering the facts of the present case and the legal proposition laid down in the afore mentioned judgments (supra) we allow the claim of bad debts raised by the assessee. 5.4 Assessee had also raised additional grounds bearing No. 1 to 5, thereby raising the grounds as under: 13 Additional Ground That on the facts an…

Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 319/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…ssee for the previous years is to be allowed. In this regard we placed reliance is being placed upon by the Ld. AR by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IRF Ltd. Vs CIT, 190 taxmann 391, and in the case of CIT Vs. Omprakas B. Selecha, [2010] 325 ITR 24 (Bombay). 5.3 Therefore considering the facts of the present case and the legal proposition laid down in the afore mentioned judgments (supra) we allow the claim of bad debts raised by the assessee. 5.4 Assessee had also raised additional grounds bearing No. 1 to 5, thereby raising the grounds as under: 13 Additional Ground That on the facts an…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1174/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…ssee for the previous years is to be allowed. In this regard we placed reliance is being placed upon by the Ld. AR by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IRF Ltd. Vs CIT, 190 taxmann 391, and in the case of CIT Vs. Omprakas B. Selecha, [2010] 325 ITR 24 (Bombay). 5.3 Therefore considering the facts of the present case and the legal proposition laid down in the afore mentioned judgments (supra) we allow the claim of bad debts raised by the assessee. 5.4 Assessee had also raised additional grounds bearing No. 1 to 5, thereby raising the grounds as under: 13 Additional Ground That on the facts an…

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1173/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

…ssee for the previous years is to be allowed. In this regard we placed reliance is being placed upon by the Ld. AR by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IRF Ltd. Vs CIT, 190 taxmann 391, and in the case of CIT Vs. Omprakas B. Selecha, [2010] 325 ITR 24 (Bombay). 5.3 Therefore considering the facts of the present case and the legal proposition laid down in the afore mentioned judgments (supra) we allow the claim of bad debts raised by the assessee. 5.4 Assessee had also raised additional grounds bearing No. 1 to 5, thereby raising the grounds as under: 13 Additional Ground That on the facts an…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. Shri. G. Balraj, Mangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 35/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri G.Balraj, Pwd Contractor, 6-112-81, Nethravathi Nagar Layout, Naagori, Kankanady, Mangalore-575002. … Respondent Pan:Abzpb5464B

For Appellant: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri G.Balraj, PWD Contractor, 6-112-81, Nethravathi Nagar Layout, Naagori, Kankanady, Mangalore-575002. … Respondent PAN:ABZPB5464B Appellant by: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT. Respondent by: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA. Date of hearing : 22/06/2015 Date of pronouncement: 30/06/2015 O R D E R Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM: This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the CIT(A), Mysore, dated…

IRF Ltd. v. CIT (325 ITR 24) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax