Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

161 ITR 365Supreme Court of India1986#4571 most cited

What is Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Losses arising from the sale of investments made for business purposes are treated as business losses, not capital losses.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · loss on sale of investment · business loss · capital loss · revenue expenditure · 161 ITR 365 · 27 Taxmann 287 · section 73

Also reported as

27 Taxmann 287

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 73 of the IT Act

Issues it is cited on

transfer of capital assetenduring benefitcommercial expediencyrevenue expendituresection 115section 11section 142(1)previous yeartransfersection 143companysection 143(3)

Judgments citing Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 461/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke M/s Chambal Fertilisers & The JCIT, Vs. Chemicals Limited, Range-2, District- Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 9762 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 575/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke The ACIT, M/s Chambal Fertilise…

M/S. Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2514/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T Ctr 40-44, Sahara India Point Central Circle-6 S.V. Road, Goregaon New Delhi Mumbai Pan : Aafcs 2904 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aanchal Khandelwal, Sr.DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2006-07] Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T CTR 40-44, Sahara India Point Central Circle-6 S.V. Road, Goregaon New Delhi Mumbai PAN : AAFCS 2904 P [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv Revenue by : Smt. Aanchal Khandelwal, Sr.DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferre…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. Associate Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5394/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43BSection 73

…ed on the valuation with which the A.O did not find any fault, the loss was rightly claimed by the appellant company on sale of investment. Reference can also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365/27 Taxman 287 where the Hon'ble Apex court held that- In the present case, there was nothing to show that there was any reason for the assessee to hold on the investment in the loan indefinitely. There was no enduring advantage. Thus, the investment did not bring in an asset of a capital nature and the loss suffered by the asse.ssee was a revenue…

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sushrut Surgicals P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6859/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”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./6859/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-8(3) M/s. Sushrut Surgicals P.Ltd. Room No.217, Aayakar Bhavan C/o., GPS & Associates (C.A.) M.K. Marg Vs. A-1, Sindhi Niwas, Sitladevi Temple Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 016. PAN:AAACS 0…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e has been placed on the following judgements : i) ITO Vs J & K Bank Ltd. 95 ITD 141 (2005); ii) Josna Bank Lt. Vs CIT 97 ITR 72; iii) CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Limited, 264 ITR 545; iv) Bank of Cochin Vs CIT 94 ITSR 93 (Ker.); v) Patnaik & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT Orissa 161 ITR 365 (S.C.) vi) State Bank of Patiala Vs ITO 8 ITD 396 (T Chd.) 12.6 Ld. A.R. submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2001-02 in I.T.A.No. 2190/Del/2006 and 2069/Del/2006, has allowed the claim of the assessee. 13. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforstated decisions, we are of th…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e has been placed on the following judgements : i) ITO Vs J & K Bank Ltd. 95 ITD 141 (2005); ii) Josna Bank Lt. Vs CIT 97 ITR 72; iii) CIT Vs Nedungadi Bank Limited, 264 ITR 545; iv) Bank of Cochin Vs CIT 94 ITSR 93 (Ker.); v) Patnaik & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT Orissa 161 ITR 365 (S.C.) vi) State Bank of Patiala Vs ITO 8 ITD 396 (T Chd.) 12.6 Ld. A.R. submitted that Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2001-02 in I.T.A.No. 2190/Del/2006 and 2069/Del/2006, has allowed the claim of the assessee. 13. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforstated decisions, we are of th…