Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT

111 ITR 263Supreme Court of India1978#2403 most cited

What is Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT authority for?

A business loss is deductible if it has a direct and proximate nexus with business operations or is incidental to them, applying a commercial standard, even without an explicit statutory provision for its deduction.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT · 111 ITR 263 · Supreme Court · business loss deductibility · direct proximate nexus · incidental to business · commercial standard · Section 28 · Section 36(2) · non-recovery of advances as business loss

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(2)Section 10(2)(xi) of Indian I. T. Act 1922Section 10(2)(xv) of Indian I. T. Act 1922Section 147Section 148Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

proximate nexussection 36(2)protective assessmentsection 269sstatement under section 132(4)section 131(1a)retracted statementbusiness expediencysource of sourcesection 269sssection 41(1)section 36(1)(iii)

Judgments citing Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3696/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. M/S. Fiem Industries Ltd, Circle-9(1), D-34, Dsidc Packaging New Delhi Complex, Kirti Nagr, New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacf1034E Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Namita Khurana, Cit-Dr (On Rotational Duty) Date Of Hearing 13/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 80I

…vant. The relevant issue to be considered is that whether the transactions can be deemed to be incidental to its business & have a direct nexus with the existing export orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchander Shivnarayan Vs CIT reported in 111 ITR 263, has observed that "If there is a direct & proximate nexus between the business operation & the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. It is in that sense that from a commercial standard, such a loss is considered to be a tradi…

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JHANDEWALAN vs. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…wable deduction and the primary case regarding this issue is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badri Das Daga vs. CTT 1958 AIR 783 34 ITR and Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 56 ITR 1 also: 1. Ram Chander Shivnarayan vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC), 2. Lord's Berry Farm Ltd, vs. CIT 27 ITR 700 (Mum.) 17 CO No. 36/Del/2024 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. 3. GG DandekarMachine Works Ltd. vs. CIT 114 CTR 190 (Bom.) 4. Circular No.13 (C.No.27 (29-IT/43) dated 24.5.1994. 5. Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Appeal No.ITA 6115/De//2019 dated 15.05.2020 In light of the above facts a…

ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by\nthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1486/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

…anding from long period\nand could not be recovered despite several attempts. The assessee also\nfurnished party-wise details of advances and copy of agreements. The\nassessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramchandar\nShivnarayan Vs CIT 111 ITR 263. The assessee also submitted that on similar\nset of fact in assessee's group case in Asthavinayak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. in\nrespect of non-recovery of advances towards stamp duty was claimed as\nbusiness loss and was allowed by Id. CIT(A). The assessee also relied on the\ndecision of Jurisdictional High Court in Mahindra and Mahindra vs CIT\n(su…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (MDL),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by

ITA 1272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Macrotech Developers Limited (Mdl) Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Vs Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Fort, Mumbai – 400001. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue (Physical Hearing) Acit – Cc – 7(3), Mumbai Macrotech Developers Private Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor, Vs 412, Floor-4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan No. Aaacl1490J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 43B

…standing from long period and could not be recovered despite several attempts. The assessee also furnished party-wise details of advances and copy of agreements. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs CIT 111 ITR 263. The assessee also submitted that on similar set of fact in assessee’s group case in Asthavinayak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. in respect of non-recovery of advances towards stamp duty was claimed as business loss and was allowed by ld. CIT(A). The assessee also relied on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in Mahindra and Mahindra vs CIT (supra…

SIDDHAYU AAURVEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// THE ACIT CIRCLE 34(3) (2) , DELHI

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…t is a trading loss and the same is arising directly from the carrying on of the business and incidental to it and in this regard, relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga [1958] 34 ITR 10 and Ramchandar Shivnarayan [1977] 111 ITR 263 wherein it is held that If there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. 6.2.10the assessee has also drawn our attention to decision of Jurisdictional Bombay…

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 978/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 977/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 976/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 975/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 921/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 920/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

…a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned (Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1987) 111 ITR 263 (SC)]. e] The two requisites are (a) the loss is incidental to trade itself, that is to say, there must be a nexus between the loss and the trade which should have been incurred in the course of the trade and (b) the loss should have been incurred by one in the character of a trader and the same should fall I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors.…

NALINI KEJRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 672/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.672/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nalini Kejriwal……..……….….…………............…...……………....Appellant 7, Lyons Range, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Ajopk0890K] Vs. Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata…….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakanta Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.05.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1A) That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,01,98,784/- Being Profit Earned From Sale Of Shares Of M/S. Gcm Securities Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act Without Considering The Explanation With Supporting Evidences Filed By The Appellant In A Proper Perspective. B) That, The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Further Erred In Not Considering That Despite Details Provided & The Fact That No Long Term Capital Gain Was Claimed In Respect Of The Impugned Transaction Of Sale Of Shares Of M/S.

Section 250Section 5Section 68Section 69C

…idental to the trade must be necessarily deducted in the ascertainment of the profits of a trade. The above ratio finds force from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC), wherein it was held that, If there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as, without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. It is in that sense that from a commercial standard such a loss is consider…

ROOP KISHORE MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9540/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 36(2)

…Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Appollo Tyres Ltd. [2013] 33 Taxmann.com 575 (Cochin-Trib.) held that Business advances given for acquisition of revenue items is allowable to be written off under section 37. 22. In Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up the principles in the following words: "If there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductable, as, without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. It is in that sense that from…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI vs. V.KRISHNAMURTHY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2558/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. V. Krishnamurthy, Income Tax, V. No. 66, Eldams Road, Non Corporate Circle -20(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aacpk-6064-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

…d v. CIT (37 ITR 1). (c) No.807 /M/807 /M/12/M/12 The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri T. Pitamber, Proprietor in ITA Nos. 868 & 869/Mum./2010 dated 22.07.2011. (d) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchander Shiv Narayan v / s CIT, 111 ITR 263 (SC). (e) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas. (f) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd [2012] 348 ITR 109 (Delhi).” 6. The Ld. Senior AR, Mr. AR V Sreenviasan, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards claim of advance written off to the extent of Rs. 6.32 c…

DCIT CENT -CIR.1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. SUNNY VISTA REALTORS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is allowed

ITA 1711/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-1(2), 511, Dalamal Towers, 211, 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Old Cgo Bldg. (Annexe), Mumbai-400 021 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aakcs1269E Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Nihar Mehta & Jayesh B. Kapani, Cas’ Revenue By : Dr. Pallavi Darade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…4 taxmann.com 256 (Madras) and also of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of ACE Designers Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2020] 120 taxmann.com 321 (Karnataka). He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC). The assessee is also furnished a paper containing 106 pages which contains the audited annual accounts and submissions made before the learned assessing officer as well as before the learned CIT – A. 08. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case certain assets wer…

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…- CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and p…

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…- CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and p…

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…) Baridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10 (SC) (ii) Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom.) (iii) CIT v. Parmanand Makhan Lal (1983) 15 Taxman 12 (Patna) (iv) Kothari & Sons v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 23 (Madras) (v) Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) (vi) Khaitan & Co. v. CIT (1979) 1 Taxman 280 (Calcutta) (vii) Churakulam Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 81 Taxman 214 (Kerala) (viii) CIT v. India United Mills Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 129 (Bombay).  The CBDT vide its undernoted circular (Circular No.35-D (Xivii- 20) (F.No.10/48/65-It(A-1)], dated 24.11.1965 has accepted the above ruling of…

AVIJIT DEWANJEE ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3249/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250(4)

…ion and nexus between the loss and the business the same has to be allowed as a deduction: • CIT v. Smt. Pukhraj Wati Bubber [2007] 199 Taxation 107 (Punj. & Har.) • CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC). • Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT, AP [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC), • Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 16. It was further submitted that even CBDT in its Circulars No.25 of 1939 and Circular No. 13 of 1944 has instructed the assessing officers that losses arising due to embezzlement by employees or due to negligence of employees should be allowed if the loss took place in…

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…gard to the nature of the operation carried on and the nature of risk involved in carrying them out. The degree of the risk or its frequency is not much relevant but its nexus to the nature of the business is material. • Ramchander Shiv Narayan vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263(SC) Taking into consideration the ratios of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Badridas Daga (supra) and CIT vs. National Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case has held that loss is deductible where there is a direct and proximate nexus between the operation and the loss or where the loss is incidental…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3