How many judgments cite Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT (333 ITR 386), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.

333 ITR 386High Court2011#3130 most cited

What is Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Waiver of a loan taken for trading purposes is taxable under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it amounts to a remission or cessation of a trading liability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT · section 41(1) · waiver of loan · trading purpose · remission of liability · cessation of liability · taxability

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 3949 Taxmann.com 302

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act Section 28 of the Income Tax Act Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loan buyback of shares section 28(iv)section 145(1)section 41(1)section 43a section 41 section 145(2)section 35d section 43(1)section 271(l)(c)profits and gains of business or profession

Judgments citing Logitronics P. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Chatta Sugar Co. Ltd, Mathura vs. A.C.I..T Circle-3, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…to profit & loss account and therefore constituted remission in terms of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 even if section 28(iv) is found to be inapplicable. Similar view was taken by Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics Private Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 386. The intention of State Government to grant such money to the assessee i.e. disinvestment of shares may be a view or consideration to the owner/State Government who is also the owner of majority stake in the company i.e. to enhance the intrinsic value of the company, but as far as the assessee is concerned, the subject receipt is clearly a revenu…

Samsung R & D Institute India Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 28Section 40Section 92C

…acts of the case. It is also noted that the ratio laid down by the Apex court decision in the case of CIT vs. TV Sundaram lyengar & Sons (222 ITR 344) and the High Court's decisions in Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417), Logitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (333 ITR 386), would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the view of the Ld. Assessing officer and accordingly the impugned disallowance is upheld. Ground dismissed.” 11. The ld AR argued that - No 'benefit' to the Assessee. (i) The equipments are given to the Assessee by the AE's, so that the software developed is co…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Napc Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 623/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 623/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1) No. 46, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : V. : Shri. : Shri. : 01.07.2024 : 14.08.2024 Napc Pvt Ltd., No.3, 6Th Floor, Apex Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-3625-P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) V. Nandakumar, Cit T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, For The

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43C

…The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that waiver of loan taken for trading purposes is taxable (ie) working capital borrowing waived by banks or financial service providers in view of decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics Pvt Ltd Vs CIT(2011) 333 ITR 386. The assessee In the instant case failed to furnish the details whether the loan borrowed was in the nature of loan acquired for capital assets or for working capital purposes. 5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during: the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals)…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Interkiln Industries Pvt Ltd, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 947/AHD/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Interkiln Industries P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sanghvi Chambers B/H. Canara Bank Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaaci 4563 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jaimin A. Gandhi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Dated 5.10.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 24Section 250Section 28Section 41(1)

…th by the Apex Court and several other High Courts in a series of decisions u/s 41(1) of the Act, i.e. – i) Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2009) 308 ITR 417; ii) CIT Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344; iii) Logitronics P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 386, (Delhi); iv) Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) and the ratio of all these decisions is that if the loan has been taken for trading purpose waiver of such loan would tantamount to cessation of liability ,liable to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. 6. In the present case the taxability of the loan waived has not been conside…

Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., Bhachau vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2636/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2636/AHD/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), NH-8A,PO.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (PIPRAPATI), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. PAN: AAICS6992G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel, ARs Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11/01/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/Da…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -3, Nashik vs. Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 915/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 3Section 32(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.915/PUN/2022 धििधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Nashik .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Windsor Machines Limited, 102/103, Dev Milan CHS Ltd., Next to Tip Top Plaza, LBS Road, Thane West, Mumbai – 400604 PAN : AAACD4302P ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari सुनवाई की ता…

Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6898/DEL/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Aug 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 28Section 36Section 41Section 41(1)

…The loan so waived off was basically for the purpose of working capital and for the same, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncement”. 5. Once again following the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Logitronics Private Limited 333 ITR 386 the AO made the addition of Rs.334,85700/-. 6. The impugned quarrel has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra in Civil Appeal No.6949-6950 of 2004 with others. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Supreme court read as under :- “17) To sum up, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment a…

Share Microfin Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyerabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 430/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

…Supreme Court involving identical set of facts and legal issues, as given below. 1. (Emphasis supplied) CIT VS. Ramaniyam Homes P. Ltd (2016) 384 ITR 530 (Mad.) 2. Solid Containers Ltd Vs. DCIT (2009) 178 Taxman 192 (Bom.) 3. Logitronics P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 386 (Del) 4. Roll Containers Ltd Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 54 (Del): and 5. CIT Vs. TV Sundaram lyengar & Sons Ltd (1996) 88 Taxman 429 (SC) 7.20 As seen from the above, it is clearly evident that the waiver of the loans other than loans barrowed for acquiring the capital assets is subject to the tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. 7.21 Be that as it may, even…

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 609/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit-19 (3). M/S. Ramani Exports. Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs.

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.609 & 608/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT-19 (3). M/S. RAMANI EXPORTS. Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor, 6/B, Shreeji Darshan, Tata बिधम/ Room No. 206, Grant Road, No. 01 & 02, Opera Road. Mumbai-400 006 House. Mumbai-400 004 Vs. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAAFR2080B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : CO NO-39/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.609/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year :2013-14) & CO NO-38/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.608/Mum/2023 (Assessmen…

DCIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ramani Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objection filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 608/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 21Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room no.1927, 19th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAEPD3658F Assessee by : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 06.07.22 Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent…

ACIT, Haryana vs. M/S. S.K. Foils Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in

ITA 3504/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani Pan No. Aabcs8183Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers ltd. Vs DCIT reported in 308 ITR 417&Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 261 ITR 501 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 333 ITR 386&Rollatainers Ltd. Vs CIT 339 ITR 54. Notwithstanding, if at a later stage assessee contests that funds were borrowed for purchase of capital assets, the same is also taxable u/s 28(iv) and reliance can be placed on the recent judgment delivered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd. reported in 68 Taxmman 289…

Arm Embedded Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28

…IT(TP)A No.1824/Bang/2017 ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1824/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Bagmane World Technology Pvt. Ltd., SEZ Citrine Block, 5th Floor, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Doddanakundi Village DCIT Circle-1(1)(1) Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore Bangalore 560 048 PAN NO : AAECA1582E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 2288/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

…e same to the total income of the assessee. 34. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 386(Bom.). It was argued that due to the following reasons the addition of Rs.45.64 Crores was not warranted:- i. Section 41(1) did not apply to buyback of FCCBs. ii. Even section 28(iv) does not apply to buyback of FCCBs. iii. The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics P. Ltd. vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 3786 (Del.) is squarel…

Paramount Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 1378/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

M/S. Paramount Communictions Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.767/Del/2014 is partly allowed,

ITA 767/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 43A

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…rse of carrying on of day to day affairs of assessee company and units on its waiver, which is to be treated as income in the revenue field. At this stage, it is appropriate to discuss certain case laws on this issue:- (1) Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 386 (Del): This was a case where certain amount of loan and interest was waived by the financial Page 7 of 14 institution as it had become Non Performing Asset (NPA) for the bank in view of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. On waiver the principal amount written off was directly taken to balance sheet under the head capital reserve, was n…

M/S. Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 528/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

…/2015 & ITA.No.528/D/2016 M/s. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 5.4. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of assessee, material on record in the light of Judgments of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Logitronics P. Ltd., vs., CIT [2011] 333 ITR 386 (Del.), deleted the addition. His findings in paras 8 to 10 of the Order are reproduced as under : 8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the case laws relied upon. At the outset, it may be noted that the stand of the Appellant that FCCBs proceeds were for setting up new project to manufacture wires has no…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. K.E.I. Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Ground No.3

ITA 1433/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Satyan Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R

M/S. Rajshree Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 679/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.679/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Rajshree Builder & Vs. ITO, Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Ward-15(2), A.S. Legal, G-8, Jain Bhawan, New Delhi 18/12 Pusa Lane, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi PAN :AAACR4754R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Respondent by Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing 12.02.2020 Date of pronouncement 28.02.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed…