How many judgments cite Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT (348 ITR 109), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(vii), Section 36(2), Section 37(1), Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 234A.

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

348 ITR 109High Court2012#2003 most cited

What is Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Unrecoverable trade advances, including loans to joint venture partners or advances against land, are allowable as a business loss incidental to trade under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act when written off in the books of accounts. Such losses are treated akin to bad debts eligible for deduction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT · Delhi High Court · 348 ITR 109 · unrecoverable trade advances · Section 37(1) · business loss deduction · bad debt · Section 36(1)(vii) · loan to joint venture partner · written off debt · commercial expediency · allowable business expenditure

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 14159 DTR 401

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)section 36(i)section 28(i)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)dividend distribution tax disallowance u/s 14a section 36(1)section 36 commercial expediency section 28 penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1776 & 1782/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Ltd. 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Ward -8(4), Ahmedabad Vs. Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 & Vishal Plastomers Pvt. Vs. JCIT Ltd. Range-8, Ahmedabad 3rd Floor, 301, Sheel Complex, 4, Mayur Colony, Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAC…

THE ITO, WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR &

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41(1)

MATRIX CLOTHING PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8183/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 36(2)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8183/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2016-17] M/s Matrix Clothing Pvt Ltd Vs. The Addl C.I.T. Village Mohammadpur, Special Range - 6 Khandsa Road, Gurgaon New Delhi PAN – AABCM 8475 B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Department By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by…

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DCIT, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant ITA No. 2136/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Beasent Rd., Worli, Mumbai-400018. PAN NO. AAACB 4674 J Respondent ITA No. 2269/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Fun Republic, 844/4 Shah Ind Estate Off New Link Road, Opp Laxmi Ind Estate, Andheri W, Mumbai-400053. PAN NO.…

BRIGS TRADING CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2136/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant Vs. M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Beasent Rd., Worli, Mumbai-400018. PAN NO. AAACB 4674 J Respondent ITA No. 2269/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Briggs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Fun Republic, 844/4 Shah Ind Estate Off New Link Road, Opp Laxmi Ind Estate, Andheri W, Mumbai-400053. PAN N…

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIGGS TRADING CO, P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI vs. NIDHI BUILDERS (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3950/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

…inciple that trade advances that are unrecoverable shall be allowed as deduction under Section 37 of the Act, in my opinion, is plausible. It has relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court (Delhi HC) in this regard in Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. C.L.T. 348 ITR 109 (Del). 5.2 In the present case, the appellant is engaged in the business of construction and hence advance against land that is not recoverable (of course, so is the supply of land) will at par with trade debt eligible for deduction on being written off in the appellant's books of accounts. Further loss due to fire is also allowable as deduction…

MATRIX CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes for both the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 subject to directions contained in para 11 above

ITA 6073/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 36(2)

…consideration vide order dated 15.05.2019 in ITA No. 1123/2018. 6.2 The Ld. AR referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Khyati Realtors (P) Ltd. 447 ITR 167(SC) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 109(Delhi) in support of his submission that the order of the Tribunal for AY 2012-13 on the issue in assessee’s own case should not be followed. 7. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties an…

MATRIX CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes for both the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 subject to directions contained in para 11 above

ITA 6072/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 36(2)

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI vs. V.KRISHNAMURTHY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2558/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. V. Krishnamurthy, Income Tax, V. No. 66, Eldams Road, Non Corporate Circle -20(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aacpk-6064-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

…/2010 dated 22.07.2011. (d) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchander Shiv Narayan v / s CIT, 111 ITR 263 (SC). (e) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas. (f) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd [2012] 348 ITR 109 (Delhi).” 6. The Ld. Senior AR, Mr. AR V Sreenviasan, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards claim of advance written off to the extent of Rs. 6.32 crores without appreciating the fact that the amount was shown in the books of accounts of the lender and borrower as unsecured loan only. The Ld. DR, further refer…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2387/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A

Section 10Section 14A

…9/- was written off and, therefore, it is an allowable deduction as loss incidental to business as bad debt. Cross I.T.A. Nos. 1758 & 2387/Del/2017 Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. CIT [348 ITR 109]; DCIT Vs. M/s. Edelweiss Capital Ltd. [ITA. No. 3971/Mum/2009]; Minda HUF Vs. JCIT [101 ITD 191 (Del.)] and Salora International Ltd. Vs. JCIT [129 taxmann.com 68 (Del)]. 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 14. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and t…

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A

Section 10Section 14A

M/S. TITAGARH WAGONS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, LTU, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sajnay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36

…was given in the course of business, the assessee company unable to recover/adjust the same and it has claimed as business loss and the same is allowable. In such respect your attention is drawn to the following decision. " a) Mohan Meakin Ltd. V. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 109 (Del) b) A.W.Figgis & Co. P. Ltd. v CIT (2002) 254 ITR 63(Cal). (v) The submission of the assessee was examined carefully and on perusal of the facts of the case, it is found that the assessee company without putting any effort for recovery/adjust of advance money from its associated company, it has claimed expense in the form of provision of dou…

RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCITCIRCLR-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4970/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 Ratna Commercial Enterprises P. Vs Dcit, Ltd., Circle-20(1), 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr0354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri T. Kipgen, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-36, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)

…purpose of business which is not recoverable, should be allowed either as business loss u/s 28 of the IT Act or bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act:- 6 i) 46 ITR 649 (SC) CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.; ii) 345 ITR 1 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Hotels Ltd.; & iii) 348 ITR 109 (Del) Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT 9. He accordingly submitted that since the advances so made by the assessee were in the course of real-estate business, therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the same should be deleted. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CI…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…ried on by the assessee; and the claim of the assessee for bad debts of Rs. 1 crore is allowable in view of the provisions contained in s. 36(1)(vii) r/w s. 36(2)(i). (Paras 21 & 22)’ (9) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd vs CIT in 348 ITR 109 has held as reproduced hereunder (paper book pages 97 to 103): Page 14 of 21 ‘’12. Merely because the claim was not made out under one particular provision of the Act, but was so made out under another provision of law, we failed to understand as to how the assessee could be debarred to raise such legal question. Having regard to all this, we ar…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RUDRADEV AVIATION PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2100/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं डॉ एम एल मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND Dr. M.L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2100/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The ACIT, M/s. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), v. Ltd., Chennai - 34. RR Tower III, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. PAN: AADCR 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/CHNY/2017 (in I.T.A. No. 2100/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M…

HBA STUDIO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4015/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan – Aabch8171R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 37(1)

…1 ITA No. 4015/Del./2018 M/s. HBA Studio Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. HBA Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN – AABCH8171R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Tapas Misra, Adv. Revenue by Shri Brij Mohan Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order u/s 2…

M/S. FORETELL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternate claim

ITA 2217/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 37o

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No. 2217/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Foretell Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., # 146, Gopal Towers, The Income Tax Officer, 1st Floor, Ramaiah Street, Ward – 3(1)(1), Old Airport Road, Bangalore. Kodihalli, vs. Bangalore – 560 008. PAN: AAACF4355J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Revenue by : Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 07.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 ORDER PER B…

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…as, of a banking company or a money-lender, or is directly connected with the other business operations. The risk is inherent in the carrying on of the business and is either directly connected with it or incidental to it.” • Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 109 (Del) The facts before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court were that the assessee was dealing in leather products and had made advance payments for import of materials to a supplier in the U.S.A. The advances were not adjusted or realised. The assessee was unsuccessful in its attempts for recovery. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s objection…

PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.147 OF 2016 BETWEEN: PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, EDEN PARK NO.20, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.R.PRADEEP, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(2) BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.415/BAN…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3