L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT

72 ITR 114High Court1969#3826 most cited

What is L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT authority for?

A business concern can still be considered to be carrying on its business even if there are long intervals of inactivity, provided it is kept alive, retains its registered office, and holds meetings. It is not necessary for a business to have work constantly to be considered in existence.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT · business expenses · going concern · carry forward of losses · section 30 · section 34 · period of lull and inactivity · retained registered office · holding meetings

Issues it is cited on

arbitrary and capriciouscarry forward of losseslegal expensesgoing concernsection 135prohibited by lawsection 30section 34section 44acommercial expediencyprofits and gains of business or professionsundry creditors

Judgments citing L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT

Snw Smith Consultant Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 2635/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansnw Smith Consultant Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 5, 112-Gl, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. 22, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aakcs4626B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Hasneeta Matta, Advocate Shri Mahan Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, This Is Second Round Of Appeal After Setting Aside The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee To The File Of The Ao By The Coordinate Bench Vide Ita No.1588/Del/2020 To Verify The Expenditures Claimed By The Assessee Even Though There Was No Business Income

For Appellant: Ms. Hasneeta Matta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

…e. 3.4. It is settled law that absence of business receipts is not a ground for disallowance of expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act. 3.5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of L. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 114 (Madras) [09-04-1965], wherein regarding allowability of business expenses, the Hon'ble Court has noted as under: The company may not obtain or be able to execute a single business contract for months and yet it may be deemed to carry on its business, if during the period of lull and inactivity it is kept alive and if it retains its registered off…

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

…ed view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure of 'assessee's business'. In the case of L. Ve. VeravanChettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 (Mad), Their Lordships of Hon'ble Madras High Court were in seisin of a situation where the assessee had obtained an import licence for doing arecanut business but due to adverse conditions in market, he temporarily suspended the arecanut business for the assessment year in question. Nevertheless, he was maintaining the establishment and was waiti…

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

…ed view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure of 'assessee's business'. In the case of L. Ve. VeravanChettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 (Mad), Their Lordships of Hon'ble Madras High Court were in seisin of a situation where the assessee had obtained an import licence for doing arecanut business but due to adverse conditions in market, he temporarily suspended the arecanut business for the assessment year in question. Nevertheless, he was maintaining the establishment and was waiti…

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

…ed view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure of 'assessee's business'. In the case of L. Ve. VeravanChettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 (Mad), Their Lordships of Hon'ble Madras High Court were in seisin of a situation where the assessee had obtained an import licence for doing arecanut business but due to adverse conditions in market, he temporarily suspended the arecanut business for the assessment year in question. Nevertheless, he was maintaining the establishment and was waiti…

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

…ed view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure of 'assessee's business'. In the case of L. Ve. VeravanChettiar vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 (Mad), Their Lordships of Hon'ble Madras High Court were in seisin of a situation where the assessee had obtained an import licence for doing arecanut business but due to adverse conditions in market, he temporarily suspended the arecanut business for the assessment year in question. Nevertheless, he was maintaining the establishment and was waiti…

Divyanidhi Buildcon Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

…ia of allowability provided w/s 36 and various judicial pronouncement. Reliance is placed on following cases: i) C.I.T. vs. Kriti Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 243 ITR 529 (HPHC) ii) C.I.T. vs. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. 201 ITR 498 iii) C.I.T. vs. L VE. Vairavan Chettiar 72 ITR 114. iv) Arkaaye Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), (ITA No. 3552/Del/2011) DELHI BENCH "SMC": NEW DELHI In the case of Sarabhai Management Corpn. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 25 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the business commences with the first activity for acquiring by purchase or otherwise immovable property. There m…

S.B. Cotton Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1072/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…business. Assessee Company is not a Section 25 Company to take up nonprofit activity and hence Business must be treated as part of its very existence.” In addition to the said reply reliance were made in the judgment passed by General Corporation Ltd.-vs-CIT, 3 ITR 350, CIT-Vs-Bharat Nidhi Ltd., 60 ITR 520 (PUNJ) & Inderchand Hariram-vs-CIT, 23 ITR 437 (ALL.). However, the contention made by the assessee was not accepted by the Learned AO and he thereafter made the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act aggregating to Rs.24,20,798/- and the depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the…

Giri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 2676/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2676/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Giri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, R-23 Lg-1 & 3 Nehru Enclave Circle-10(1), New Delhi- 110019 New Delhi Pan : Aabcg2921Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2676/Del/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Giri Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, R-23 LG-1 and 3 Nehru Enclave Circle-10(1), New Delhi- 110019 New Delhi PAN : AABCG2921Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.03.2018 of CIT(A)-3…

ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi vs. Fiitjee Edusoft Ltd (Merged With Fiitjee Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 5266/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 37

…l. CIT vs E-funds International India (2007) 162 Taxmann 1 Delhi High Court 2. ITO vs Mokul Finance (P) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 11 Delhi Tribunal 3. CIT vs Ganga Properties Ltd. (1992) 62 Taxmann 286 Calcutta High Court 4. L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 Madras High Court 5. ITO vs Patel Corp. P Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 82 Mumbai Tribunal 6. Akarsh Printers Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax I.T.A.No.2279 (Kol) of 2007 Kolkata Tribunal 7. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. M/s. Rediff.Com India Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 174 Bombay High Court 8. CIT, Cochin vs. South India Corporation Ltd. […

Fiitjee Edusoft Ltd (Merged With Fiitjee Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 4975/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anil Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 32Section 37

…l. CIT vs E-funds International India (2007) 162 Taxmann 1 Delhi High Court 2. ITO vs Mokul Finance (P) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 11 Delhi Tribunal 3. CIT vs Ganga Properties Ltd. (1992) 62 Taxmann 286 Calcutta High Court 4. L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114 Madras High Court 5. ITO vs Patel Corp. P Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 82 Mumbai Tribunal 6. Akarsh Printers Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax I.T.A.No.2279 (Kol) of 2007 Kolkata Tribunal 7. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. M/s. Rediff.Com India Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 174 Bombay High Court 8. CIT, Cochin vs. South India Corporation Ltd. […

ITO - 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M. W. Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6689/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito-4(2)(4), Room No. 647, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S M.W.Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Marine Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aafcm1365G ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit(Dr) Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14.09.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO-4(2)(4), Room No. 647, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/s M.W.Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Marine Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. PAN: AAFCM1365G ..... Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT(DR) Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 25/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 20/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Mu…

Fancy Builders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, 5(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5171/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 5171/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SMC BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2012-13 Fancy Builders Pvt. Ltd., .…………………………Appellant Shalimar House, 335, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007[PAN: AAACF5437B] Vs. Income Tax Officer 5(1)(4) Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent Appearances by: Neelam Jadhav for the appellant Sudha Ramchandran for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 18/04/2022 Date of pronouncing the order : 15/07/2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar VP 1. By way of this…

Monarch Realty and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4325/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemonarch Realty & Vs. Dcit 10(2)(2) Developers Pvt Ltd., 209, 2Nd Floor, 410/411 Janki Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Dattaji Salvi Road, Off Mk Road, Mumbai – Veera Desai Road, 400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabch2236F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Sanyam Joshi. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Sanyam Joshi. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…the construction activity and the projects are delayed due to external factors and real estate market. We support our view on the ratio of decision of Honble High Court of Monarch Realty And Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. Madras in L.VE.Vairavan Chettiar Vs CIT 72 ITR 114 (Madras). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on the disputed issue is set-aside and direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition and allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.02.2022. (PRAMOD KUMAR) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE)…

M/S. Safina Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2512/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarim/S. Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 84/85, Safina Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Pan Aaccs 5146G Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jcit(D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37

…tion of its undertaking by State Government and the matter was pending in the court; all the expenses incurred by assessee in running the establishment during that period are allowable as deduction. viii) In the case of L. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 114, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that if a person carries on two or more distinct businesses, the profits or losses of all of them ought to be added together and the aggregate sum would represent his profits or gains in the business. ix) In the case of Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under (HELD P…

M/S. Ideal Hitech Engineering Equipment (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 251(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-3316/Del/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2012-13) M/s Ideal Hitech Engineering Equipment vs ITO (P) Ltd. Ward 12(1) 17, Okhla Industrial Estate-III, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No. AAACI0319R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Nischay Kantoor, CA Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR ORDER PER SH. H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-18, New Delhi dated 06.04.2017 for AY 2012-…

ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata vs. Shri Dinesh Sancheti, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2383/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini] I.T. A No. 2383/Kol/2016 A.Y : 2013-14 Acit, Cir-40, Kolkata Vs. Shri Dinesh Sancheti Pan: Ajjps2762B (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Respondent /Department : Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl.Cit (Ld.Dr) For The Appellant /Assessee : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl.CIT (ld.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40Section 43B

…ess activities were carried out from the previous year which was paid to Mls Tulsi Mercantile P. Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vairavan Chettiar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(l969) 72 ITR 114. The CIT(A) observed that assessee had earned enough revenue from Siliguri area in the financial year 2012­13 and deleted the disallowance. Appeal against the decision of the CIT(A) may not be preferred as it does not have merit or legal dispute, if approved. The second issue in which the CIT(A) has given relief of Rs. 19,20,0001­ on account of S…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. G.G. Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Sooddy. Commissioner Of Income M/S G.G. Trading Pvt. Ltd. Tax-1(1)(2), 6Th Floor, New Harileela House, 579, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mint Road, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aadcg9246J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Malav P. Sheth, A.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…lowed as a business loss. A temporary discontinuance of business may give rise to an inference that a business is passing through a lean period of transition and it could be revived if proper circumstances arise. 5.13 In the case of Variavan Chettiyar Vs. CIT 72 ITR 114 (Mad.), Madras High Court was held that:- “The company may not obtain or be able to execute a single business contract for months and yet it may be deemed to carry on its business, if during the period of lull and inactivity it is kept alive and if it retains its registered office and holds meetings. It is not necessary that a business to be in ex…

Sistas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…t mean that it has ceased to exist, if the assessee continues to maintain an establishment and incur expenses in the expectation that work would come and business would be successful. We may refer here to the decision in L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant…

Sistas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD)2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3847/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…t mean that it has ceased to exist, if the assessee continues to maintain an establishment and incur expenses in the expectation that work would come and business would be successful. We may refer here to the decision in L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant…

Ideal Toll & Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 7758/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…porary lull in the business. Accordingly it was submitted that the expenses claimed by the assessee is allowable. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of L.Ve.Vairavan Chettiar Vs. CIT (72 ITR 114); the decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Inderchand Hari Ram Vs. CIT (23 ITR 437). 14. The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the absence of toll collection receipts does not signify that the assessee has 10 Ideal Toll & Infrastructure Private Limited stopped its business operations. Having h…