Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

49 ITR 578High Court1963#4770 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 133(6)Section 250 Section 46A Section 68

Issues it is cited on

remission or cessation of liability section 41(1)section 41 sundry creditors previous year prescribed total income company section 250 business section 143(3)india

Judgments citing Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

HARSHAD HIMMATLAL RUPANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

In the result the ground number 3 is allowed for Statistical

ITA 920/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.920/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Harshad Himmatlal Rupani, V The Income Tax Officer, 101/102, Ashoka Building, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Green Valley Housing Society, Wanwadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Adopr6163Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur – (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 22.11.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…SC328 and CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 102 Taxman 713/236 ITR 518. In Sugauli Sugar Works(P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. This view is also taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR479. Therefore, the submission made by the Appellant that because the liability is bar…

FCG FLAMEPROOF CONTROL GEARS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4820/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Fcg Flameproof Control Gears Acit, Circle-6(3)(1), Private Limited Mumbai A1/53, Shah & Nahar Vs. Industrial Estate, Sitaram Jadhav Road, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaacc 2688 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Nishant Somaiya, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee still has shown the liability under the head sundry creditors payable. Further before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has also referred the judicial pronouncement in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518, Kohinoor Mills 49 ITR 578 on the proposition that merely on the expiry of period of limitation it does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. Therefore, we consider that only on the ground that sundry 3 FCG Flameproof Control Gears Private Limited A.Y. 2017-18 creditors liability was more than 3 years old, it is not justified to treat as the income of the a…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 863/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 DCIT, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 and 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa BK B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra PAN: AAACI5708E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Chandni Shah & Mr. Hardik Nirmal Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing 15.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 22.10.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19 arises against the NF…

ECOKRIN HYGIENE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya a/w Ms. RashmiFor Respondent: 11.01.2024

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…C 328 and CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 102 Taxman 713/236 ITR 518. In Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. This view is also taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 479. Therefore, the submission made by the Appellant that because the liability is ba…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. F A INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the order of the learned CIT (A) is confirmed

ITA 2739/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Fa Infraprojects Limited Ward 12(2)(1) Plot No.112, Room No.147B, 1St Floor, Tps Iii, 1St Floor, Vs. 6Th Road, Khar (West) Aaykar Bhavan , Mumbai-400 052 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcf3996Q Assessee By : Ramesh B Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Vranda U Matkarni, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2023

For Appellant: Ramesh B Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkarni, DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

PENINSULA PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Central Circle–5(2) Peninsula Properties 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vakil Industrial Estate, Valbahat Nariman Point, Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Churchgate Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaifp 7134 L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Praveen Shekhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR

Section 143Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

ITO, WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. C D STEEL PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1360/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013 14

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013 14 Income Tax Officer, V/s. M/s C.D. Steel Pvt. Ltd., Ward-3(3), Aayakar Commerce House, 2A Bhavan, P-7, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4th Floor, Room No.8E, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, 4th Floor, Kolkata-13 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AABCC 3442 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Choudhury, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hear…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NEW WORLD SYNTHETICS LIMITED,

ITA/806/2018HC Delhi27 Aug 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260Section 41(1)

…bed in the Limitation Act does not extinguish the debt but only prevents the creditor from enforcing the debt. This is the right and correct position in law as held by the Bombay High Court in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 49 ITR 578 (Bom.) and Bhagwat Prasad and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 111 (All). In this context the ITA No. 806-2018 Page 6 of 7 admission and acknowledgement of the debt and liability by the respondent- assessee is significant and important. 11. The patent flaw in the argument rais…

ACIT,CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1907/KOL/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2001-02 Acit, Cicle-36, Aayakar V/S. M/S Soorajmull Nagarmull, Bhawan, Poorva, 8Th 8 B.B.D. Bag (East), Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aaaab 0601 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhwewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2001-02 Calls Into Question Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.142/Cit(A)/10/Cir-36/15-16/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Invoking Section 41(1) After Treating The Assessee’S Liability Amount Of ₹12,97,47,322/- To Be A Case Of Cessation Of Liability Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Of Cessation Of Liability U/S 41(1)(A) Of The Act Reads As Follows:- “06. Decision: 1. I Have Carefully Considered The Action Of The Ld.Ao In Adding An Amount Of Rs.12,97,47,322/- U/S. 441(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, On Grounds That There Was A Cessation Of Liability On The Part Of The Assessee For The Impugned Amount & That Therefore It Would Constitute Part Of The Income Of The Assessee-Firm. It Is To Be Observed That This Is The 2Nd Round Of The Assessment Order For The A.Y 2001-02, And

Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)Section 441(1)

…ct between the parties, or by discharge of the debt the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability. We have already held in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 578 (Bom.) that the mere fact of the expiry of the period of limitation to enforce it, does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. In the instant case, the liability being one relating to wages, salaries and bonus due by an employer to his employees in an industry, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act also are attracted and for…

M/S VAISHALI BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1720/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1720/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Vaishali Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-2, Chinsurah [Pan: Aabcv 0627 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

…t between the parties, or by discharge of the debt the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability. We have already held in Kohinoor Milfs Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 578 (Born) that the mere fact of the expiry of the period of limitation to enforce it, does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. In the instant case, the liability being one relating to wages, salaries and bonus due by an employer to his employees in an industry, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act also are attracted and for…

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

VIJAY KUMAR DAGA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA, KOLKTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1837/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vijay Kumar Daga -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Afupd 5201 K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Mundra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT

Section 14ASection 41Section 41(1)

…ITA No.1837/Kol/2017 Vijay Kumar Daga A.Y.2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vijay Kumar Daga -versus- I.T.O., Ward-6(4), Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AFUPD 5201 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar Mundra, FCA For the Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 14.03.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata relating to A.…

SHREE SHANKAR STEELS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.C.Mondal, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 41Section 41(1)

…ITA No.1341/Kol/2016 Shree Shankar Steels A.Y.2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shree Shankar Steels -versus- I.T.O., Ward-44 (3) Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AAKFS 2965 H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri D.C.Mondal, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 15.03.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-21, Kolkata relating to…

ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHIRAZ DEVELOERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6631/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 41(1)

…does not result in remission / cessation of liability which is the basic condition to be fulfilled to attract the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. In support of such submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Kohinoor Mills Ltd. v/s CIT, 49 ITR 578; ii) J.K. Chemical v/s CIT, 62 ITR 34; iii) CIT v/s Sugauli Sugar Works Ltd. 236 ITR 518; iv) CIT v/s Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd, 89 DTR 265; v) CIT v/s Wardhaman Overseas Ltd., 343 ITR 408; and vi) Principal CIT v/s Matru Prasad Pandey, 377 ITR 363. An entry in the Balance Sheet of assessee constitutes B) acknowledgement of assessee’s liability to hon…

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. SHARAD S. RUIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4423/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon’Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleacit, Central Circle-34, Vs. Sharad S. Ruia, Mumbai. D-704,Vastu Park, Evershine Nagar, Malad (W), Mumbai - 95

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari – AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy - DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 41(1)

…236 ITR 518, the Supreme Court disapproved the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 1021. In this judgment, the Bombay High Court had distinguished its earlier judgment in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 578 by holding that cessation of liability can take place even as a result of an unilateral act and where a debt has become barred by limitation by operation of law, the unilateral act of the assessee transferring the same to his profit and loss account and thereby treating as his income would attract the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. The Bo…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…a contract between the parties, or by discharge of the debt –the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability. We have already held in Kohinoor Mills’ case [1963] 49 ITR 578 (Bom) that the mere fact of the expiry of the period of limitation to enforce it, does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. In the instant case, the liability being one relating to wages, salaries and bonus due by an employer to his employees in an industry, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act also are attracted and for t…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

ACIT vs. M/S ALVARES & THOMAS,

ITA 1676/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesan, CA

Section 131(1)(d)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Alvares & Thomas, Income Tax, 3-9-742, ‘Alvares Centre’, Circle 1(1), Vivekananda Road, Nanthoor, Bangalore. Mangalore. PAN : AAFFA 0107K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR) Respondent by : Shri S. Venkatesan, CA Date of hearing : 05.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal by the Revenue agai…

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1078/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Subramanya Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…t between the parties, or by discharge of the debt the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability. We have already held in Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 578 (Bom) that the mere fact of the expiry of the period of limitation to enforce it, does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. In the instant case, the liability being one relating to wages, salaries and bonus due by an employer to his employees in an industry, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act also are attracted and for t…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETEX DELHI II vs. JAIN EXPORTS PVT LTD

ITA/235/2013HC Delhi24 May 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 41(1)

…r a contract between the parties, or by discharge of the debt-the debtor making payment thereof to his creditor. Transfer of an entry is neither an agreement between the parties nor payment of the liability. We have already held in Kohinoor mills’ case [1963] 49 ITR 578 (Bom) that the mere fact of the expiry of the period of limitation to enforce it, does not by itself constitute cessation of the liability. In the instant case, the liability being one relating to wages, salaries and bonus due by an employer to his employees in an industry, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act also are attracted and for t…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2