How many judgments cite Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT (101 ITD 103), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 56(2), Section 58(2), Section 68.

Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT

101 ITD 103Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#10044 most cited

What is Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision in Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) is cited for the proposition that the nature of a transaction involving non-convertible debentures (NCDs) may be distinguished from the forfeiture of a loan when determining tax implications, and that a CIT(A) might err in deleting additions without further inquiry if the apparent is not the real.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prism Cement Ltd v JCIT · 101 ITD 103 · 2006 · ITAT · NCDs · forfeiture of loan · CIT(A) deletion · addition · apparent vs real

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 56(2)Section 58(2)Section 68

Judgments citing Prism Cement Ltd. v. JCIT

ITO-1(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1027/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantito- 1(3)(4) Vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Room No. 528, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 19, 3Rd Floor Mumbai- 400020 6 M.K. Amin Marg, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv1302N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri. Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,62,27,500/- Made By The Ao Under I The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The 2 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 4Section 68

…UM/2022.It was further held by the coordinate benches of ITAT in the following cases that the transaction of forfeiture of share applications is not a revenue receipt and thus not even chargeable to tax u/s. 41 of the Act: Prism Cement Ltd. vs. JCIT [2006] - 101 ITD 103 (Mum. Trib.), has held as under: „15. Thus, the earnest money or an advance amount received on account issuance of NCDs, if forfeited on account of non- payment of call money, the loan liability would only convert into a capital receipt. It would not assume a character of revenue receipt or business receipt because NCDs were not issued in the co…

Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow vs. M/S Dev Bhoomi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…ng case laws: I.T.A. No.116/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 5 (i) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs. DCIT (1994] 49 ITD 355 [ITAT, Calcutta) (ii) DCIT vs. Brijlaxmi Leasing & Finance Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 546 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) (iii) Prism Cement Limited vs. JCIT (2006) 101 ITD 103 (ITAT, Mumbai) (iv) Addl. CIT vs. Om Oils & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 552 (Del.) (v) Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 158 (SC) (vi) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (ITAT, Mumbai) (vii) Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd., In Rel3 ITR 457 (Lahore) (viii) Jaikishan Dadla…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Retail Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Leena Shrivastava

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5959/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), M/s Future Retail Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ground Floor, Knowledge बिधम/ Road, Mumbai 400 020 House, Off-Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Road, Shyam Vs. Nagar, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400 060 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACP6317L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 867/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Future Retail Ltd. ACIT Range – 10(3)(2), Grou…

Balasore Alloys Ltd, Orrissa vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Pawan Singhआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1170/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Respondent: Shri. N.P. Singh (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 253

…f which is available at page No. 90 to 99 of PB. In support of submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Coordinate Benches of Tribunal viz; Jaikishan Dadlani Versus ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138(Mumbai), Prism Cement Ltd Versus ACIT [2006] 101 ITD 103(Mumbai), DCIT Versus Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Ltd [2009] 118 ITD (AHD), Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Versus DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (Mumbai) and Asiatic Oxygen Ltd Versus DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 355 (Mumbai). It was argued that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT TV Sundaram Ayenger & Sons 222 ITR 344 (SC) relied…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Tranquil Homes & Holding P.Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 299/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…2003] 87 ITD 618 (Hyd) Dy.CIT vs Tosha International Ltd [2008] 116 TTJ (Delhi) 941 Impast (P) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer [2004] 91 ITD 354 (Del) Helios Food Improvers (P) Ltd vs Dy.CIT [2007] 14 SOT 546 (Mum) Prism Cement Ltd vs Jt CIT [2006] 285 ITR(AT) 43 / 101 ITD 103(Mum) ITO vs Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd [2007] 109 ITD 71 (Mum)(TM) Accelerated Freeze and Drying Co. Ltd. vs Dy.CIT (IT Appeal No.971 (Coch) of 2008. The assessee also distinguished the judgements relied upon by the AO on the ground that in those judgements, the amounts were received in course of trading transactions whereas in the case of t…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Nalwa Chrome P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 238/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM M/s. SICOM Ltd., Vs. DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & DCIT – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/s. SICOM Ltd., Nirmal, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACS5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora with Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue by Shri B. Pruseth Date of Hearing 20/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the cross appeals filed by t…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

Asst CIT (OSD 8(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5621/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2011-12 Acit-8(2)(Osd), M/S Jayant Agro Organics R. No.218, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Akhandanand, 38, Marok Vs. M.K. Road, Co-Op. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020 Off. M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 Pan No.Aaacj7581Q (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 80I

…firmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. has further relied upon the decision of the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Prism Lt. vs. JCIT” (2006) 101 ITD 103 (Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the amount received on account of forfeiture of NCDs for non payment of call money was to be treated as capital in nature as the issuance of NCDs (non convertible debentures) was not a business of the assessee and hence such amount cannot be charged to tax even under section 41(1) of the Act. 7 M/s Jayant…

ACIT (OSD) 8(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5056/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit (Osd)-8(2), M/S. Jayant Agro Organics Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 38, Marol Co-Op Industrial M.K. Road, Vs. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Off. M.V. Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 59 Pan: Aaacj 7581Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Mohandas, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2016

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohandas, D.R

Section 80I

…nfirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. has further relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Prism Lt. vs. JCIT” (2006) 101 ITD 103 (Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the amount received on account of forfeiture of NCDs for non payment of call money was to be treated as capital in nature as the issuance of NCDs (non convertible debentures) was not a business of the assessee and hence such amount cannot be charged to tax even under section 41(1) of the Act. 6. We find…