Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

314 ITR 314Supreme Court of India2009#3183 most cited

What is Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to taxing a balancing charge under section 41(2) or to bad and doubtful debts specifically covered under section 41(4), as these provisions deal with distinct circumstances.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nectar Beverages · Section 41(1) · Section 41(2) · Section 41(4) · balancing charge · bad debts · doubtful debts · recoupment · deemed income · distinct provisions

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 41(2)section 41(4)recognised provident fundapproved superannuation fundsection 43dsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 36(1)(viia)section 36(1)(viii)doctrine of mergerstrategic investment

Judgments citing Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…t topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as la…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…t topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as la…

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as l…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as l…

Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 6766/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 32Section 37(1)

…t be recharged? We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Central Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2017) 399 ITR 212 (Del), after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (2009) 314 ITR 314 (SC), held that irrespective of the provision in which the word “depreciation” is used, owing to the very nature of the word, it is not a loss or an expenditure or a trading liability. 15. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid analysis, we find merit in the findings of the learned DRP that depreciation is a statutory deduction and not a service ex…

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as la…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as la…

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC)wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as lai…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC)wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as lai…

M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2396/BANG/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Acit, No.78, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Electronic City, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaact 4660 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vikram Udupa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit-2(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Udupa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 92C

…40(a)(i) of the Act is misplaced. As noted above, the payment towards technical know-how was capitalized in the books of the assessee and depreciation on the same was claimed. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nector Beverages (P.) Ltd. v DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314 (SC), in the context of section 41, held that depreciation, by its very nature, is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability. On this count, invoking section Page 14 of 15 40(a)(i) of the Act which prohibits claim of revenue expenditure, is incorrect. This view is also fortified by the decisions relied on by the assessee as not…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…is well settled by now that depreciation is an allowance allowed while computing income and cannot be regarded as expenditure. In this regard, attention is invited to a. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 314 ITR 314, wherein the assessee a manufacturer of soft drinks had purchased bottles and crates in respect of which 100% depreciation was claimed in the year they were acquired as cost of each of the item was less than Rs.5,000. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold the bottles and crates on which 100% depreciation had been claimed in t…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…is well settled by now that depreciation is an allowance allowed while computing income and cannot be regarded as expenditure. In this regard, attention is invited to a. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 314 ITR 314, wherein the assessee a manufacturer of soft drinks had purchased bottles and crates in respect of which 100% depreciation was claimed in the year they were acquired as cost of each of the item was less than Rs.5,000. During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold the bottles and crates on which 100% depreciation had been claimed in t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 587/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.587/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Rani Seethai Hall, No. 603, Anna Salai, Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Chennai 600 006. Building, Iii Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaatt0683N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: Ground No.1 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. Ground No:2: 2.1 The Id Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Eligible For Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act & Not Hit By The Amended Provisions Of Sec.2(15) Of The Act, Under The Object Of "General Public Utility".

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11Section 2(15)

…1 of the Act. 8.2 The Id CIT (A) erred in allowing the claim of depreciation, when the cost of acquisition of assets were treated as application of income; as held by the Apex Court / High Courts in the following cases (i) M/s. Nectar Beverages Limited Vs CIT 314 ITR 314.· (ii) M/s. J.K Synthetics Limited (65 Taxman 420) (iii) Lissie Medical Institutions Vs CIT 348 ITR 344 (Ker). (iv) DIT Vs. Ms/. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 43 taxmann.com 300(Del). 8.3 The Ld CIT (A) ought to have placed reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Bahadur Cunnan Chetty Charities 135 ITR…

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as laid d…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as laid d…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1(SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages Pvt.Ltd. 314 ITR 314 (SC) to buttress the contention that “depreciation is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability, referred to in section 41(1).” He contended that applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and Nectar Beverages Pvt.Ltd. (supra) hence, the amount written back in…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Ltu (2), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad-Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…of the sub-sections deals with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as la…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3644/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, CIT-DR&
Section 143(3)Section 147

…and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another. We have considered the decision relied on in this regard of Supreme Court in the case of 92 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. 91. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts is dealt with specifically under section 41(4) of the Act, as l…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…Hoshane D. Nanavati (supra) that section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance admissible to the assessee. The decision has been arrived at after considering the decision in the case of Nectar Bebverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314. The Id. CIT (DR) has not been able to displace the ratio of these cases. Thus, on consideration, we find that section 14A uses the words "expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income A statutory allowance under section 32 is not an expenditure. Therefore, we are in aereement with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ho…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…Hoshane D. Nanavati (supra) that section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance admissible to the assessee. The decision has been arrived at after considering the decision in the case of Nectar Bebverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2009) 314 ITR 314. The Id. CIT (DR) has not been able to displace the ratio of these cases. Thus, on consideration, we find that section 14A uses the words "expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income A statutory allowance under section 32 is not an expenditure. Therefore, we are in aereement with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ho…