L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

60 ITR 520High Court1966#16066 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

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

…ection 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 Act at Rs.55,808/-; the entire amount…

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

…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 case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered t…

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

…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 case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered t…

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Amogh M. Ghaisas (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

…t no business activity was undertaken. The assessee incurred the expenditure wholly and exclusively which is allowable expenses. In support of his submissions the ld. AR for the assessee filed a long list of following decision. (i) CIT Vs Baharat Nidhi Ltd , 60 ITR 520 (Punjab), (ii) Mrs Sarojini Rajah Vs CIT 71 ITR 504 (Madras), (iii) V.VE. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. CIT, 72 ITR 114(Madras), (iv) Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT, 83 ITR 1 (Bombay), (v) Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 561 (Bombay), (vi) CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd, 199 ITR 94 (Calcutta), (vii) Lakshmi Narayan Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C…

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRS METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 450/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.Y 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member A.Y 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s. PRS Metaliks Ltd PAN AADCP9239J [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by : Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DR Respondent by : Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 17-10-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10-01-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This is appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT-(A),- I, Kolkata dated 06-01-2016 for the assessment year 2012…

DOLPHIN OFFSHORE SHIPPING LTD,BELAPUR vs. ASST CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6323/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)

…gh it may, for some time, be quiet and dormant. We may fruitfully refer to the decision in the case of L. Ve. Vairavan Chettair vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1935)3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddas vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah vs. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). 8.1 However it is found that the assessee failed to file before the A.O. and the learned CIT(A) the material or evidence in respect of the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as narr…

L.Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (60 ITR 520) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax