Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

348 ITR 109High Court2012#1986 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.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 234ASection 234BSection 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 taxdisallowance u/s 14asection 36(1)section 36commercial expediencysection 28penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CIT

Devkishin Bherumal Pahlajani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-

ITA 163/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dr. Devkishin Bherumal Pahlajani, The Asst. Cit 16(2), Soona Villa, Flat No. 81/82, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Perry Cross Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aacpp5413E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.V. Desai (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2018

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Desai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 57

…he debt has become irrecoverable and it is enough if bad debts is written off as irrecoverable in books of account of the assessee. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Mohan Meaken Ltd vs. CIT 348 ITR 109 (Delhi), the right of the assessee to relief is not restricted to the pleas raised by him before the departmental appeals before the tribunal. If in respect of the contentions raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it would be open to the departmental authorities and the tribunal to grant that relief. 7. T…

Sri Sibendu Basu, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-54, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 315/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 315/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sibendu Basu.............................………………………………………….............Appellant 39A, Townshend Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 700 025 [Pan : Aecpb 9682 F] D.C.I.T. Cir-54 Kolkata...................……………………………………………….......Respondent 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016 Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata Dated 03.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 5,34,700/- Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Fund Mobilisation Expenses. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Derives Income From Legal Profession, Commission & Brokerage From Insurance & Mutual Funds Companies, Long Term & Short Term Capital Gains Etc. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him 30.10.2006 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,66,160/-. In The Profit & Loss Account Filed Along With The Said

Section 131

…grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it would be open to the department authorities and the tribunal, and indeed they would be under a duty to grant that relief”. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in IT No. 405 of 2007 recently reported in (2012) 348 ITR 109 (Del) in the case of Mohan Meakin Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax. But the ratio decided in this case law is not applicable in assessee’s case. It is because the assessee has treated income from same source as capital receipt in earlier year and did not pay any tax on it. So, how can the assessee be allowed to claim it as revenue loss in an…

M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the assessee’s and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1858/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Refinery House, Manali, Vs. Tax, Chennai – 600 068 Company Circle-I(3), [Pan: Aaacm 4392C] Chennai – 600 034 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: 07.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(iii)

…he Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, relying on the decisions by the Apex Court, including by its larger bench constitution in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), held likewise per its recent decision in Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 170 (Mad). The decision in Tamil Nadu Chemical Products Ltd. (supra) is in respect of deduction u/s. 35AB qua technical know-how, a capital expenditure, with the said deduction being in the nature of a capital allowance, as depreciation allowance u/s. 32(1), and has therefore no application in the facts of the present case. The assessee’s case is acc…

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Embryonic Properties Ltd

ITA/1067/2017HC Delhi28 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…e 2 amount was therefore disallowed. The CIT(A) granted relief by treating the amount as a business loss. The ITAT affirmed this finding. In doing so, the ITAT relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 109 (Del.). 3. As is evident, the facts disclose that there are concurrent findings. Besides, treatment of particular amounts is not to be based only on the manner of the assessee’s reporting or its treatment in the books but as to its true nature as ruled in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 36…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3743/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…ompany. Since the assessee had written off the amount during the year, the same should be allowed as a deduction. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 109 submitted that the deduction claimed represents business loss of the assessee company and as such is eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 I…

Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3307/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…ompany. Since the assessee had written off the amount during the year, the same should be allowed as a deduction. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 109 submitted that the deduction claimed represents business loss of the assessee company and as such is eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 I…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 2997/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…ompany. Since the assessee had written off the amount during the year, the same should be allowed as a deduction. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 109 submitted that the deduction claimed represents business loss of the assessee company and as such is eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 I…

Ashok Mittal vs. ITO, Ward-24(3)

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, the

ITA 3764/DEL/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Ashok Mittal, Ito, Ward- 24(3), 42, Sainik Farms, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Acit, Circle- 24(1), Shri Ashok Mittal, New Delhi. Vs. 42, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan : Aaspm6882C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Dande, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…ompany. Since the assessee had written off the amount during the year, the same should be allowed as a deduction. 17. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 109 submitted that the deduction claimed represents business loss of the assessee company and as such is eligible for deduction u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 I…

Bgr Investment Holdings Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes; the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed; and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 476/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2017AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 31.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37(1)Section 40

…he expenditure would remain capital in nature (para 23 of the impugned order – IO). Reliance for the purpose is placed on a number of decisions, viz. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co Ltd v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 65 (SC); Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P.) Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 170 (Mad) (refer paras 24 and 25 of IO). Without doubt, the character of the expenditure would not alter merely because the object or the purpose for which it is incurred does not fructify. The success of the expenditure does not determine its admissibility, or result in a change in its character, as explained by the Apex Court in CIT v. Rajendra Pra…

M/S. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2468/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35DSection 41Section 41(1)

…nd therefore it would fall in the capital feild and not in ITA Nos.2324 & 2468/Mds/2016 the revenue field. Thereafter citing the decision in the case CIT vs. Brila Bros reported in 77 ITR 75 (SC), Kwality Fund Foods & Restaurant (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 356 ITR 170 (Madras High Court) and the decision of the case Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1 (SC), the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of bad debts to the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with the view of the Ld.AO upheld the order. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the advance paid by the assessee is not recoverable and hence i…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 2324/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35DSection 41Section 41(1)

…nd therefore it would fall in the capital feild and not in ITA Nos.2324 & 2468/Mds/2016 the revenue field. Thereafter citing the decision in the case CIT vs. Brila Bros reported in 77 ITR 75 (SC), Kwality Fund Foods & Restaurant (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 356 ITR 170 (Madras High Court) and the decision of the case Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1 (SC), the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of bad debts to the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with the view of the Ld.AO upheld the order. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the advance paid by the assessee is not recoverable and hence i…

Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 442/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35DSection 41Section 41(1)

…nd therefore it would fall in the capital feild and not in ITA Nos.2324 & 2468/Mds/2016 the revenue field. Thereafter citing the decision in the case CIT vs. Brila Bros reported in 77 ITR 75 (SC), Kwality Fund Foods & Restaurant (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 356 ITR 170 (Madras High Court) and the decision of the case Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1 (SC), the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of bad debts to the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with the view of the Ld.AO upheld the order. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the advance paid by the assessee is not recoverable and hence i…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 319/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35DSection 41Section 41(1)

…nd therefore it would fall in the capital feild and not in ITA Nos.2324 & 2468/Mds/2016 the revenue field. Thereafter citing the decision in the case CIT vs. Brila Bros reported in 77 ITR 75 (SC), Kwality Fund Foods & Restaurant (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 356 ITR 170 (Madras High Court) and the decision of the case Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 124 ITR 1 (SC), the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of bad debts to the assessee. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) agreeing with the view of the Ld.AO upheld the order. Before us the Ld.AR submitted that the advance paid by the assessee is not recoverable and hence i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Embryonic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla & Sri O.P. Kantay: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 11(1) Vs. Embryonic Properties (P) Ltd. Room No.312 1St Floor, Ece House Cr Bldg. 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi New Delhi 110 001 Pan: Aabce 5708 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.R Respondent By : Sh. Vk Aggarwal, A.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. VK Aggarwal, A.R
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 79

…as business loss of the assessee company. For coming to this conclusion he has strongly relied upon the following decisions of Honourable Delhi High Court. * CIT vs. Rose Services Apartment (India) P.Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 100 (Del.) * Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 109 (Del.) 6. The learned counsel first of all drew our attention to the sale deed executed between the assessee company and M/s Advitiya Fabrics Private Limited to whom the said land in Pilerne, Goa was sold. From the said sale deed he pointed out that the entire background of the acquisition of the land has been mentioned, that out of total plot o…

Wilhemsen Ship Management (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

ITA 6159/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran- DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 3Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जी जी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6159/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Wilhelmsen Ship Management(India) The Dy. CIT 8(3) 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Private Ltd. 31/32, 3rd Floor, “Apple Heritage” Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Sir M.V. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 003.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. from the bank account in the course of business of the assessee and once such was the position then such sum was eligible for deduction. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs CIT 59 DTR 401 (Del) " CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 46 ITR 649 (SC) 17. It was stated before the ld. CIT(A) that the amount had been fraudulently withdrawn by anonymous person, the assessee thought prudent to write off the loss though suit had been filed for recovery of the same and that the loss was suffered by the assessee of Rs.8,25,000/- in regular course of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. from the bank account in the course of business of the assessee and once such was the position then such sum was eligible for deduction. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs CIT 59 DTR 401 (Del) " CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 46 ITR 649 (SC) 17. It was stated before the ld. CIT(A) that the amount had been fraudulently withdrawn by anonymous person, the assessee thought prudent to write off the loss though suit had been filed for recovery of the same and that the loss was suffered by the assessee of Rs.8,25,000/- in regular course of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. from the bank account in the course of business of the assessee and once such was the position then such sum was eligible for deduction. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs CIT 59 DTR 401 (Del) " CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 46 ITR 649 (SC) 17. It was stated before the ld. CIT(A) that the amount had been fraudulently withdrawn by anonymous person, the assessee thought prudent to write off the loss though suit had been filed for recovery of the same and that the loss was suffered by the assessee of Rs.8,25,000/- in regular course of…