Pyoginam v. Additional Commissioner of Income

130 TTJ 7Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#18978 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 28 Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

Judgments citing Pyoginam v. Additional Commissioner of Income

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.19/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur v/s Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. 216, Devi Kripa Society ……………. Respondent Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAFCS6709L Assessee by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra Revenue by : Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar Date of Hearing – 14/05/2025 Date of Order – 15/05/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The aforesaid appeal by the Revenue is directed against the i…

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

…year to the AO and in the event of forfeiture of deposits the same shall be allowed as a deduction while computing total income. The Learned Counsel for assessee relied upon the following decision: i. Pyoginam v. Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2010] 130 TTJ 7 (Delhi)(UO), 49 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited. ii. Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) in the case of Thackers H.P. & Co. vs. CIT (10 Taxman 187) iii. Narandas Mathuradas & Co (35 ITR 0461) (Bom HC) iv. Social Media India Ltd (ITA No 390/Hyd/2013) (Hyderabad ITAT) 86. The Learned Departmental Representativ…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 2825/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 37(1)

…. disallowed the impugned amount on account of forfeiture of security deposit treating the same as capital expenditure. The assessee agitated the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) and placed reliance upon the following decisions : “Pyoginam Vs. ACIT reported in 130 TTJ 7 (Del) Forfeiture of earnest money deposit for non fulfillment of the export quota in neither a penalty nor capital expenditure but is in the nature of business loss allowable as a deduction. 3 ITA.No.2825/Del./2014 M/s. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi. CIT Vs. Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in 205 ITR 163 (SC) Payment though…

Avery India Ltd., Haryana vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 601/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kedia, ld.A/RFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…ther Bharat Cooking 6,021 refunded nor adjusted since long time the assessee considered it as prudent to write off the amount. Coal Ltd Reliance in this regard is placed on the Sub-Total ( C ) 2,26,101 following judgements:- M/s. Pyoginam –vs- Add.CIT (2010 130 TTJ 7 (Del) CIT-vs- Sugar Dealers (1975) 100 ITR 424(All) Thackers H.P & Co –vs- CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21(MP) Narandas Mathuradas and Co –vs- CIT (1959) 35 ITR 461 (Bom) Dheerajlal Raghav & Co. ITO (1978) 5 TTJ 557 (Cuttack) Rent Deposit [ deposited but not refundable while vacating the flat The rent deposits were made in Rent Deposit 2,000 respect of flat…