Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT

416 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2019#1954 most cited

What is Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT authority for?

Subscription amounts received from the public at large under a collective investment scheme are in the nature of capital receipts and not income, and therefore, should be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT · 416 ITR 1 · 73 Taxmann.com 258 · capital receipt · collective investment scheme · not income · subscription amount · total income calculation · Section 11 · Section 12 · Section 12A · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

73 Taxmann.com 258

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat creditaccumulated profitsdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 158bdsection 80icshell companysection 142(2a)section 2(22)retracted statement

Judgments citing Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1062/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1061/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1059/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd

ITAT/390/2017HC Calcutta10 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 2Section 260ASection 32

…OD-12 ORDER SHEET IA NO. GA/2/2017 (Old No:GA/3718/2017) In ITAT/390/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA Vs M/S. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM And The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 10TH DECEMBER, 2021 Appearance: Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. …For the Appellant Mr. Abrotosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Antara Choudhury, Adv. …For the Resp…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Taxpayers Units), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Copper Ltd

ITAT/8/2018HC Calcutta01 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 260ASection 32Section 32(2)

…OD-12 ITAT/8/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/64/2018) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LARGE TAXPAYERS UNITS), KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED Appearance: Ms. Sucharita Biswas, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Chunder, Adv. Mr. Biman Kumar Saha, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Dutta, Adv. Mr. Atanu Mondal, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 1st December, 2021. The Court : Thi…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Jct Liimited

ITAT/162/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.1983/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Framed The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Our Consideration: “(A) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Tribunal Was Erred In Law In

Section 2Section 260ASection 263Section 32

…OD – 36 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1419/2017) IN ITAT/162/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA VS. M/S. JCT LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date: November 25, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … for the appellant Mr. Asim Choudhury, Adv. … for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st June, 2016 passed by the…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Kids Kemp

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/8/2019HC Karnataka26 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 32(2)

…the instant case, the Tribunal has dealt with the contention of the revenue in paragraph 6 and has held that for the reasons assigned therein, in the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' 380 ITR 165 does not apply to the case of the assessee and has recorded a finding that the 8 miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed as the revenue has failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal. The order dated 06.07.2017 is based on the decision of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/1359/2009HC Kerala23 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHINFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY
Section 32(2)

…and 1359 of 2009 ITA No.1359 of 2009 The last sentence in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 23/07/2021 is corrected as “The issue is considered by the Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax [2016] 380 ITR 165(SC) and this Court in CIT, Cochin v Cochin Shipyard Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 174 (Kerala) and it has been held that the assessee can claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the income earned in the assessment year 1998-99 under any head of income”, and the second sentence of the last paragraph is corrected as “The questions framed…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin vs. M/S.Premier Tyres Ltd., Kalamasserry

ITA/1358/2009HC Kerala23 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHINFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY
Section 32(2)

…and 1359 of 2009 ITA No.1359 of 2009 The last sentence in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 23/07/2021 is corrected as “The issue is considered by the Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax [2016] 380 ITR 165(SC) and this Court in CIT, Cochin v Cochin Shipyard Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 174 (Kerala) and it has been held that the assessee can claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the income earned in the assessment year 1998-99 under any head of income”, and the second sentence of the last paragraph is corrected as “The questions framed…

Tata Securities P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3589/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Tata Securities Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Income Tax -4(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Esplanade House, 29 Room No. 669, 6Th Floor, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact2150R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon (DR)
Section 40

…Dairy Federation Ltd. v. The ACIT, Circle 6, Jaipur (ITA No. 352/JP/2017). 8. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut v. Electra (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 598 (Allahabad) 9. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (416 ITR 1) (S.C) 10.Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. (386 ITR 267) (Raj)” 5. He submitted, even while completing assessments in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15 the AO has allowed assessee’s claim of deduction. In this regard, he drew our attention to the copies of the assessment orders placed…

M/S. Rao Computers Consultants Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/710/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

…s.3 to 5 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is further submitted that substantial question of law No.6 has been answered by the Supreme Court in 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT', (2019) 416 ITR 1 SC. The order dated 24.03.2017 insofar as it pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11 is hereby quashed. 11 In the result, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss…

M/S. Rao Computer Consultants Pvt Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/709/2017HC Karnataka26 May 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260A

…s.3 to 5 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is further submitted that substantial question of law No.6 has been answered by the Supreme Court in 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT', (2019) 416 ITR 1 SC. The order dated 24.03.2017 insofar as it pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10 is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss…

ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai vs. Ttg Industries Private Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1934/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 154Section 32

…rther submitted that the said decision of the Calcutta High Court was tested for its correctness by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was dismissed in the decision reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 258. 6. After elaborately hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed on the decision in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., would, in no manner, assist the case of the Revenue. We say so after referring to Circular No.14/20…

Smt M. R. Prabhavathy vs. The Assistant Commissioner

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

WTA/8/2019HC Karnataka16 Jan 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 32(2)

…the instant case, the Tribunal has dealt with the contention of the revenue in paragraph 6 and has held that for the reasons assigned therein, in the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of 'PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Vs. CIT' 380 ITR 165 does not apply to the case of the assessee and has recorded a finding that the 8 miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed as the revenue has failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal. The order dated 06.07.2017 is based on the decision of…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prasad & Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3646/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu,Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyc.O. No.299/Del/2016 (In Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle – 13, W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H & Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Ward 19 (3), New Delhi. W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Goel, Cit Dr Assessee By: Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n trust; and that, therefore, such receipt cannot be termed to be the income of the assessee. For a similar principle, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pearless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2019), 416 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is not a theoretical aspect but the reality of the situation that has to be viewed as a whole, which may lead to the conclusion that the receipts in question were capital and not income. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts clearly show that the assessee is entitled only to t…

M/S Prasad & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3153/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu,Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyc.O. No.299/Del/2016 (In Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle – 13, W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H & Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Ward 19 (3), New Delhi. W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Goel, Cit Dr Assessee By: Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…n trust; and that, therefore, such receipt cannot be termed to be the income of the assessee. For a similar principle, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pearless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2019), 416 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is not a theoretical aspect but the reality of the situation that has to be viewed as a whole, which may lead to the conclusion that the receipts in question were capital and not income. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts clearly show that the assessee is entitled only to t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Island Hotels Maharaj Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2993/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 32(2)Section 72Section 73

…y 2008-09 in ITA NO.420/Mds/2017 dated 29.06.2017. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “ ………………The Ld.DR placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 380 ITR 165. 3. On the contrary, Ms. S.Sriniranjani, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 32(2) was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2002 by Finance Act, 2001. After the amendment, the carry forward depreciation has to be treated as depreciation for the current year and it has to be set off for the succeeding previous years. The Gujarat High Court in…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sterling Holiday Financial Services Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 1128/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1128/Mds/2016 "नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 32(2)

…y 2008-09 in ITA NO.420/Mds/2017 dated 29.06.2017. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “ ………………The Ld.DR placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 380 ITR 165. 3. On the contrary, Ms. S.Sriniranjani, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 32(2) was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2002 by Finance Act, 2001. After the amendment, the carry forward depreciation has to be treated as depreciation for the current year and it has to be set off for the succeeding previous years. The Gujarat High Court in…