Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

49 ITR 578High Court1963#4697 most cited

What is Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A liability does not cease to be a debt merely because it is barred by limitation, and therefore, such a liability cannot be treated as income under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act solely on grounds of limitation.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT · section 41(1) · section 41 · remission or cessation of liability · sundry creditors · limitation barred · business income · total income · company · assessment

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

remission or cessation of liabilitysection 41(1)section 41sundry creditorsprevious yearprescribedtotal incomecompanysection 250businesssection 143(3)india

Judgments citing Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA/774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…ntract 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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA-774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…ntract 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…

CIT vs. Hotline Electronics Ltd

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA-1073/2011HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 41(1)

…TR 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 2011:DHC:6637 ITA No.1073/2011 Page 8 of 9 operation of law, the unilateral act of the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA - 774 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…ntract 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…

CIT vs. Hotline Electronics Ltd

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA - 1073 / 2011HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 41(1)

…TR 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 2011:DHC:6637 ITA No.1073/2011 Page 8 of 9 operation of law, the unilateral act of the…