Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT

46 ITR 325Supreme Court of India1962#10026 most cited

What is Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The classification of investments in a balance sheet does not determine the intent of holding them; entitlement to deductions depends on the relevant legal provisions. Entries in account books are not conclusive regarding the nature of investments.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd v CIT · 46 ITR 325 · SC · business advantage · purpose of business · profits and gains from business · classification of investments · intent of holding investments · entries in books of account · conclusive evidence

Judgments citing Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…25. ITO v. Deepak Popatlal Gala (Mum.)(Trib(ITA no. 5920/Mum/2013, dt.17.03.2015) (AY. 2010-2011) 26. Ramesh Kumar & Co. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) 27. ACIT v. RamilaPravin Shah (Mum.)(Trib.) List of additional cases relied upon 1. Tansukhrai Bodulat v. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 325 2 .Rajan Kumar Manchanda vs State of Karnataka 1990 SCC (Cri)537 3. Pyarelal Mittal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 291 ITR 214(Gauhati) 4. CIT vs Simon Craves Ltd(1967)105 ITR 212(SC) 5. Dheeraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954)26 ITR 736 (SC) (1) Assessee's statement was recorded on oath and it has become now an affidavit. As per various Sup…

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

…investment purposes. Therefore, the classification of investments in the balance sheet does not indicate the intent of holding the said investments. We draw reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 36 (SC) wherein it was held that entry in books of account cannot be considered as conclusive and the entitlement of particular deduction depends upon the provisions of law relating thereto. If the main reason for holding the investments is for deriving a business advantage to the company, then the said investment is held for the purpose of business…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ji Mithi borwala (1971) 82ITR 821 (SC) 11 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO v) Vijay Kumar Jain Vs CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj) vi) CIT Vs Ramsukh Motilal (195) 27 ITR 54 (Bom) vii) R.K. Das & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Cal) viii) Tansukhrai Bodulal Vs ITO (1962) 46 ITR 325 (Assam-FB) ix) Sewlal Daga Vs CIT (1965) 55 ITR 406 (Cal) 3.8 It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CWT Vs.KundanLal Behari Lal (1975) 99 ITR 581 (SC) wherein it has been held that the word ‘issue’ meant ‘serve’ and thus a notice cannot be said to have been issued to a person unless he is served with it. Service of the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5379/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

…period of maturity of underlying schemes. The brokerage becomes due and the liability to pay arises the moment investor invests in mutual fund schemed. Assessee also relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg.Co Vs. CIT 82 ITR 36 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarath High Court’s decision in the case of General Co-operative Bank v. ACIT in civil application No.16483 of 2010. Assessee further submitted that the same practice has been consistently being followed for treatment of brokerage expenses I its books as well as income tax return. 3 Axis Asset Management Co.Ltd. The A…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 723/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Years : 2010 – 11

For Appellant: Shri.KR.Pradeep CA along with Smt.Girija G.P.CAFor Respondent: Shri.Priyadarshi Mishra
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…section 153C read with 153A of the Act, in the case of assessee. He placed reliance on following decisions in support of his contention: • Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 363 (SC) • Tansukhari Bodulal vs ITU and Ors. Reported in 46 ITR 325 (FB- Assam) • Manvy Bros vs CIT reported in Bom HC 93 CCH 40 • Smt. Bhagya Nagaraj vs DCIT in ITA No.93-96/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2005-06 to 2008-09 by order dated 25/10/2017 • ACIT vs Sh.Srinivas Rao Hoskote in ITA No.1154-1155/Bang/2015 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by order dated 21 02/02/2018 • Halcrow Group Ltd., vs ADIT in…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…tax is to be determined as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Accounting Standards are not relevant for the same. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the apex court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. ltd. vs CIT (1971) 83 ITR 363; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 116 ITR 1 and further upon the CBDT Circular No.2 of 2001 dated 9.2.2001 stating that the Accounting Standards on leases will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on asset under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Reliance was further placed on notification issued by the CBDT dated 9.1.2015 and furthe…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…tax is to be determined as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Accounting Standards are not relevant for the same. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the apex court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. ltd. vs CIT (1971) 83 ITR 363; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 116 ITR 1 and further upon the CBDT Circular No.2 of 2001 dated 9.2.2001 stating that the Accounting Standards on leases will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on asset under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Reliance was further placed on notification issued by the CBDT dated 9.1.2015 and furthe…

M/S Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…tax is to be determined as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Accounting Standards are not relevant for the same. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the apex court in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. ltd. vs CIT (1971) 83 ITR 363; Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 116 ITR 1 and further upon the CBDT Circular No.2 of 2001 dated 9.2.2001 stating that the Accounting Standards on leases will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on asset under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Reliance was further placed on notification issued by the CBDT dated 9.1.2015 and furthe…

The ITO, Visakhapatnam vs. Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Sesha Sri, Visakhapatnam

ITA 39/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-4(1), Vs. Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Visakhapatnam. Sesha Sri, D.No. 45-47-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aarpg 6268 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao – FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward-4(1), vs. Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Visakhapatnam. Sesha Sri, D.No. 45-47-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. PAN No. AARPG 6268 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri C. Kameswara Rao – FCA. Department By : Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR Date of hearing : 08/03/2018. Date of pronouncement : 14/03/2018. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of In…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2733/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…of accounts cannot be considered as conclusive and the entitlement of particular deduction depends upon the provisions of law relating thereto. The ld.A.R relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT 82 ITR 36(SC). 8.1 According to lower Authorities, shares have been held as investments for the year ended on 31.03.2009 relevant to assessment year 2009-10, as such the loss arising out of sales of investment to be considered as a capital loss as the investments was in capital field. Against the order of the Revenue, now the Assessee is in appeal before…

M/S. Repco Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2732/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

For Appellant: Mr.M.Viswanathan, C.A ""For Respondent: Dr.S.Sundaresan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…of accounts cannot be considered as conclusive and the entitlement of particular deduction depends upon the provisions of law relating thereto. The ld.A.R relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT 82 ITR 36(SC). 8.1 According to lower Authorities, shares have been held as investments for the year ended on 31.03.2009 relevant to assessment year 2009-10, as such the loss arising out of sales of investment to be considered as a capital loss as the investments was in capital field. Against the order of the Revenue, now the Assessee is in appeal before…

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd. v. CIT (46 ITR 325) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax