Preimus Investment & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

171 TTJ 794Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#23206 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Preimus Investment & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

M.R.M.PLANTATIONS P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, KARAIKUDI

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

ITA 519/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 09.11.2017

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…mitted that the interest income received from others is only business income on which the assessee is entitled to claim various deductions like salaries, motor car expenses and exchange fluctuation. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble (171 TTJ 794). Further, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the ITA No. /Mds/2017 5 enhancement notice dated 27.10.2016 was issued based on the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Asst.years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Accordingly, the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal relied on by the assessee cannot be applied to the facts of t…

SOUTHERN AUTO FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2241/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2241/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S Southern Auto Finance Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Company Circle Vi(3), #384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aagcs 1092 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) mainly found that the business of the assessee was stopped, therefore, the assessee cannot claim any bad debt. Referring to the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Preimus Investment & Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 171 TTJ 794, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical set of facts, the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal found that denial of registration by Reserve Bank of India as non-banking 5 I.T.A. No.2241/Mds/12 v. ACIT (2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 130. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in not only confirming the order of the Assessing Officer but also enhancing…

KAVITA MARKETING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4886/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhm/S. Kavita Marketing Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5,Jolly Bhawan No.2, Gr. Flr., 7, New Marine Lines,Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan:Aaack 2103P ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)

…debited in the P&L Account are routine expenses which are liable to be allowed for maintaining the 7 business entity. In this context, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Preimus Investment & Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT, 171 TTJ 794(Mum-ITAT) to say that expenditure incurred for maintaining status namely, miscellaneous expenses, salary, legal expenses, travel expenses etc. would be an allowable expenditure. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure by noticing that the expenses debited in the…