Jackie Shroff v. ACIT, Range 16(1)

101 Taxmann.com 455Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#4248 most cited

What is Jackie Shroff v. ACIT, Range 16(1) authority for?

An assessee can claim an outstanding balance as a business loss under Section 28 if it arises from regular business transactions, even if conditions for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) are not met, provided sufficient evidence is produced.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jackie Shroff v ACIT · Section 28 · Section 36(1)(vii) · Section 36(2) · business loss · outstanding balances · bad debt deduction · regular business transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 50Section 14ASection 115JBSection 139(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 14bsection 10(33)section 40a(7)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 28(1)section 36(2)section 36(i)section 28(iv)section 43b(b)section 36(1)(vii)going concernbusiness expediency

Judgments citing Jackie Shroff v. ACIT, Range 16(1)

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Late Shri Naren Rajan, Rep.by L/H Smt. Padmini V.R, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…er conditions set out in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend within the meaning of this section. e) The lndore bench of the tribunal in Asian Business Connections (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT - 101 Taxmann.com 455, relying on the various decisions at Paras 36, 37 held at Para 39, which is extracted below; “36. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 120091 184 taxmann.com 483/318 ITR 476 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court held “that the section 2(22)(e) can be applied to ‘loans or advances’ simplicitor and not to those transac…

Padmini Rajan, L/R of Late (Shri) Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…er conditions set out in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend within the meaning of this section. e) The lndore bench of the tribunal in Asian Business Connections (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT - 101 Taxmann.com 455, relying on the various decisions at Paras 36, 37 held at Para 39, which is extracted below; “36. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 120091 184 taxmann.com 483/318 ITR 476 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court held “that the section 2(22)(e) can be applied to ‘loans or advances’ simplicitor and not to those transac…

Naren Rajan, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

…er conditions set out in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend within the meaning of this section. e) The lndore bench of the tribunal in Asian Business Connections (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT - 101 Taxmann.com 455, relying on the various decisions at Paras 36, 37 held at Para 39, which is extracted below; “36. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 120091 184 taxmann.com 483/318 ITR 476 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court held “that the section 2(22)(e) can be applied to ‘loans or advances’ simplicitor and not to those transac…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…n’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT V/s Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. (259 ITR 114), held that the advances written-off for purchase of machinery which was not supplied, would be revenue expenditure. Similar is the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Jackie Shroff V/s ACIT (174 ITD 770) which held that money advanced out of commercial expediency would be an allowable deduction. The ratio of all the stated decisions support the conclusion that advances lost during the course of business would be business losses and hence, an allowable deduction. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to grant the deduction of amount s…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…er conditions set out in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied, that amount of loan would be liable to be regarded as deemed dividend within the meaning of this section. e) The lndore bench of the tribunal in Asian Business Connections (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT - 101 Taxmann.com 455, relying on the various decisions at Paras 36, 37 held at Para 39, which is extracted below; “36. Similarly in the case of CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing (P.) Ltd. 120091 184 taxmann.com 483/318 ITR 476 (Delhi) Hon’ble High Court held “that the section 2(22)(e) can be applied to ‘loans or advances’ simplicitor and not to those transac…

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs DCIT, UG-28, Som Dutt Chambers-II, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFL1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2013 of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi relating to ass…

Kokuyo Camlin Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhkokuyo Camlin Limited Acit -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Midc, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacc1647E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Kokuyo Camlin Limited ACIT -10(1)(2) 48/2, Hilton House, Central Road, Aayakar Bhawan, MIDC, Andheri (E), Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400093. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACC1647E Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale with Ms. Ruchira Parekh (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR) Date of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is dire…

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)

…re, 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 incurred huge loss and networth was eroded. Further, BIFR declared the said company as sick industrial company and hence advances…