Kerala Transport Co. v. ACIT

50 TTJ 435Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1994#14646 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

going concernmercantile system of accountingbook profitssection 37assistant commissionerprescribedcompanybusinessdocument

Judgments citing Kerala Transport Co. v. ACIT

INDERJIT SINGH BRAR,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 537/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 69

…in the current year and no adverse view should be taken on the basis of this opening balance. It is settle law in various number of judgments which is as under : 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KERALA TRANSPORT CO. itat, cochin bench source (1994) 51 ITD 405 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Coch) 189. 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. K.M.N. NAIDU HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Source (1996) 221 ITR 451 (Mad) : (1996) 136 CTR (Mad) 341. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAHALAD RAI RATHI ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH ITANo. 282/Jd/2018; Asst. yr. 2015-16 Source (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 593 (Jd) So in the light of these facts and circumst…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S CARE HEALTH INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD.)

ITA/304/2024HC Delhi30 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 37

…nature, the same cannot be considered to be an ad-hoc provision against contingent liability resulting in disallowance of the said liability, The principle enunciated in the case of Kerela Transport Company vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [1994]50 TTJ 435 supra squarely applies to the facts on hand, In the light of above, I do not find any merit in the addition made by the AO in this case . Accordingly, ground no 3 is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12. Upon due consideration, we find that AO has erred in holding provision for unsettled claims as contingent liability. In the light of a…

DCIT CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5603/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 37

…to circumstances, the extent of which cannot be envisaged at the time of accrual of expenditure does not mean that the said provision is not allowable under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on Kerala Transport Co. vs. ACIT, [1994] 50 TTJ 435 (Coch. ITAT) [Paras 4@Pgs. 6-91 Compilation], the reasoning of which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Kerala Transport Co., [1999] 2391TR 183 (Ker.) [Paras 10-11@Pgs. 3-41 Compilation]. 6 ITA No.3541 & 3542/Del./2018 ITA No.5603/Del./2019 8. Without prejudice to the above, the unutilised provision consisting of re…

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3542/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 37

…to circumstances, the extent of which cannot be envisaged at the time of accrual of expenditure does not mean that the said provision is not allowable under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on Kerala Transport Co. vs. ACIT, [1994] 50 TTJ 435 (Coch. ITAT) [Paras 4@Pgs. 6-91 Compilation], the reasoning of which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Kerala Transport Co., [1999] 2391TR 183 (Ker.) [Paras 10-11@Pgs. 3-41 Compilation]. 6 ITA No.3541 & 3542/Del./2018 ITA No.5603/Del./2019 8. Without prejudice to the above, the unutilised provision consisting of re…

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3541/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 37

…to circumstances, the extent of which cannot be envisaged at the time of accrual of expenditure does not mean that the said provision is not allowable under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on Kerala Transport Co. vs. ACIT, [1994] 50 TTJ 435 (Coch. ITAT) [Paras 4@Pgs. 6-91 Compilation], the reasoning of which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Kerala Transport Co., [1999] 2391TR 183 (Ker.) [Paras 10-11@Pgs. 3-41 Compilation]. 6 ITA No.3541 & 3542/Del./2018 ITA No.5603/Del./2019 8. Without prejudice to the above, the unutilised provision consisting of re…

LINE-ONE TRADING PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ITO - 2(5) THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2847/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Line-One Trading Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Pvt. Ltd. 601, Hitakshi Mumbai. Vs. Heights, Indra Lok Phase-6, Bhayander East, Thane-401105 Pan No. Aaccl2001K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…en their respective investments that they are holding and in turn, the assessee has issued their equity share capital to them. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision in V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd. 305 CTR (Mad) 228 and Kerala Transport Co. 51 ITD 405. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.5,04,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the Ld. DR relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 10.04.2017 in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain v. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 18/2017) and files a copy of it. M/s Line-one…

CHANDAN M PARMAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…mmissioner is filed in the form of the paper book placed before Tribunal. The ld AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Calcutta High Court in J.P. Investment Co. vs. CIT [206 ITR 718], decision of Cochin Tribunal in ACIT vs. Kerla Transport Company [51 ITD 405] and the decision of Allahabad High Court in Sundarlal Jain vs. CIT [117 ITR 316]. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of Pr. Commissioner and argued that the AO has not made any enquiry in respect of Capital gain claimed by the assessee. There is no reference in the assessment order about the Gain on agricultural lan…

Kerala Transport Co. v. ACIT (50 TTJ 435) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax