PCIT v. Khyati Realtors (P) Ltd.

447 ITR 167Supreme Court of India2022#10897 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 115JBSection 234BSection 28Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(i)section 36(2)section 36(1)(vii)section 41commercial expediencyinterest under section 234bsection 28section 36section 36(1)section 37section 37(1)section 115jb

Judgments citing PCIT v. Khyati Realtors (P) Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBBALLI vs. HUBLI SCAN CENTRE PVT. LTD., DHARWAD

In the result the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer are allowed as indicated above

ITA 554/BANG/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Hubli Scan Centre Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, 6-13 Lgf, Eureka Junction, Circle-1 & Tps, Travelers Bungalow Road Vs. Hubballi Dharwad - 580029 Pan: Aaach9520M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…rred during the year or not. Thus, the claim of the assessee neither falls under section 28 nor under section 37 (1) of the act. 9. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the argument with the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 447 ITR 167 (SC) in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Khyati Realtors private limited. It was further claimed that when it is not in the ordinary course of business that the assessee has given advance to the associated concern, same is not deductible in the hands of the assessee as expenditure or as a Page 14 of 17 business loss. It was sub…

PUJA ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

…d further, we would note that Mr. Suresh Kumar reiterated the findings of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and ITAT. Mr. Suresh Kumar also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pr. CIT v. Khyati Realtors (P.) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 461/289 Taxman 60/447 ITR 167 (SC)/AIR 2022 SC 4030. to submit that Section 36(1) of the Act gives benefit to the assessee to claim a deduction on any bad debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year and that benefit is subject to Section 36(2) of the Act. Appellant has not satisfied the ingredients of both…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 710/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…prove that the account has been irreversibly closed. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the yardsticks laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in POT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd, (2022) 447 ITR 167 (SC) have not been satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the claim of a sum of Rs, 83.58 crores has been rightly disallowed by the Assessing officer under normal computation on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The learned Commi…

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 426/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…prove that the account has been irreversibly closed. 12. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the yardsticks laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in POT v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd, (2022) 447 ITR 167 (SC) have not been satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding that the claim of a sum of Rs, 83.58 crores has been rightly disallowed by the Assessing officer under normal computation on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The learned Commi…

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5792/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tten off in the books of accounts. It is the say of the ld. D/R that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (supra) has been diluted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 447 ITR 167 (SC). The ld. D/R went on to I.T.A. No. 5792/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2013 18 read the assessment order which according to him was very relevant to buttress his point. 30.1. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of the assessment pointed out that the AO himself has accepted that the assessee has actually written…

ICICI BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5396/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]
Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…tten off in the books of accounts. It is the say of the ld. D/R that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (supra) has been diluted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. reported in 447 ITR 167 (SC). The ld. D/R went on to I.T.A. No. 5792/Mum/2013 I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2013 18 read the assessment order which according to him was very relevant to buttress his point. 30.1. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of the assessment pointed out that the AO himself has accepted that the assessee has actually written…

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

…& 6073/Del/2019 6 Delhi High Court and a question of law has been framed on the issue for 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 ca…

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)

…Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2012-13, appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble 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 ca…

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)

…Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2012-13, appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble 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 ca…

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

…is due to irrecoverability of the same and as such is an allowable business loss. On a specific query by the Bench to the Ld. Counsel in respect of effect of recent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 167 (SC), ld. Counsel made a detailed submission to demonstrate that it is distinguishable in the present set of facts for its applicability. He submitted that the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the assessee in view of the following : 13 Titagarh Wagon Ltd., AY: 2013-14 “a) Advance given was for supply of…