Lalvani v. CIT

107 ITR 540Reported decision1977#18648 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Lalvani v. CIT

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Anand vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Anand Circle Anandsojitra Road Anand. Vallabhvidyanagar 388 120 Pan : Aaace4644D 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shria.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: ShriA.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

…much relevance but its nexus to the nature of the business is material." Similarly irrecoverable advances made to sole sellimg agents were also allowed as business losses by the Hon’bleAllahbad High Court in the case of CIT vsJwala Prasad RadhaKishan (1977) 107 ITR 540. In view of the above We hold that theassessees claim of irrecoverableloans and advances of Rs.8,23,60,154/- was allowable as business loss since they were incidental to the business of the assessee. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 15. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under: “2. Disallowance of claim of de…

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2(1), New Delhi C/o- M.L. Garg & Co. CAs, K-60, 2nd Floor, Opp. PVR Plaza, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Circle-2(1), New Delhi Ltd., S-327, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Garg, CA Department by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1276/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-2(1), New Delhi C/o- M.L. Garg & Co. CAs, K-60, 2nd Floor, Opp. PVR Plaza, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Circle-2(1), New Delhi Ltd., S-327, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AAECP1689F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Garg, CA Department by Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.DR…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Cylinders Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7337/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Rama Cylinders Pvt. Income Tax- 3(3)(1) Ltd. Room No.609, 6Th Floor 181, Maker Tower, Aayakar Bhavan “E”, Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccr8653D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…oss. In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses." 6. He also referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT v. Jwala Pd. Radha Kishan [1977] 107 ITR 540, where the difference of Rs. 44,234 representing the amount along with interest advanced by an assessee, a sole selling agent, to the company and the shares that it got in lieu thereof was treated as a bad debt. Reliance was also placed on the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Baldeoram Beharilal [1975] 99 ITR 108. In that case, the amount…