Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT

111 ITR 263Supreme Court of India1978#2379 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 366,339 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

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…TR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. L…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…TR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. L…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…TR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. L…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…shi v. CIT [2006 287 ITR 547 (SC) CIT v. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 (SC) CIT v. S.C. Kothari [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC) CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) CIT v. T.C. Reddy [2013] 356 ITR 516 (AP) Ramachandar Shivanarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC) Bipinchandra K. Bhatia v. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.107 of 2004 (Guj) 30. Though there is no specific provision providing for deduction of ‘business loss’ by virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…shi v. CIT [2006 287 ITR 547 (SC) CIT v. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar [1972] 86 ITR 607 (SC) CIT v. S.C. Kothari [1971] 82 ITR 794 (SC) CIT v. Piara Singh [1980] 124 ITR 40 (SC) CIT v. T.C. Reddy [2013] 356 ITR 516 (AP) Ramachandar Shivanarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC) Bipinchandra K. Bhatia v. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.107 of 2004 (Guj) 30. Though there is no specific provision providing for deduction of ‘business loss’ by virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…TR 547)(SC) (b) CIT vs. S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar (1972)(86 ITR 607)(SC) (c) CIT vs. S.C.Kothari (1971)(82 ITR 794)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. L…

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2688/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri/Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 2120 & 2505 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT, 301, Vandemataram Circle-4(1)(2), Arcade, Nr. Gota Cross Vs Ahmedabad Road, Gota, Ahmedabad (Respondent) PAN: AACCV6255H (Appellant) ITA No. 2688 & C.O. No. 22 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2014-15 The DCIT, Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Circle-4(1)(2), Ltd. 301, Ahmedabad Vs Vandemataram Arcade, (Appellant/Respondent) Nr. Gota Cross Road, Gota, Ahmedabad PAN: AACCV6255H (Re…

Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2120/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri/Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 2120 & 2505 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT, 301, Vandemataram Circle-4(1)(2), Arcade, Nr. Gota Cross Vs Ahmedabad Road, Gota, Ahmedabad (Respondent) PAN: AACCV6255H (Appellant) ITA No. 2688 & C.O. No. 22 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2014-15 The DCIT, Vyapti Infrabuild Pvt. Circle-4(1)(2), Ltd. 301, Ahmedabad Vs Vandemataram Arcade, (Appellant/Respondent) Nr. Gota Cross Road, Gota, Ahmedabad PAN: AACCV6255H (Re…

DCIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3136/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.J. Shukla, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, DR
Section 143(3)

…peration of the assessee's business and it is incidental to the business operations. Reliance in this case is placed on the decision of CIT Vs. Howrah & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1989) 44 Taxman 409 (Cal). 17. Further in the case of Ramchand Shrinarayan Vs. CIT (1978) [111 ITR 263] It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operations and the Loss and it is incidental to its business operation and doing all that is incidental for profit earning, such losses would be allowable as a business loss u/s.28 of the Act. We noted that on the above mentioned facts in…

National Aviation Co of India Ltd ( Air India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed & the appeal assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2182/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2182/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Air India Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As National Income Tax-5(2), Mumbai Aviation Co. Of India Ltd.,) Vs. Director Finance, Old Airport, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccn6194P

For Appellant: S/shri Shri D.J. Shukla &For Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…ny law. In the absence of it, the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 37 will not be applicable in the present case”. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT [111 ITR 263] (SC), wherein it was held that – the loss occurred on account of theft to be a trading loss incurred in the ordinary course of business of purchasing Government securities. It was also held that – the loss by theft is connected directly with and incidental to the business of assessee. In this connection, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on pa…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. National Aviation Company of India Ltd ( Formelry Known As Air India Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed & the appeal assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1423/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2182/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Air India Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As National Income Tax-5(2), Mumbai Aviation Co. Of India Ltd.,) Vs. Director Finance, Old Airport, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaccn6194P

For Appellant: S/shri Shri D.J. Shukla &For Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…ny law. In the absence of it, the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 37 will not be applicable in the present case”. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT [111 ITR 263] (SC), wherein it was held that – the loss occurred on account of theft to be a trading loss incurred in the ordinary course of business of purchasing Government securities. It was also held that – the loss by theft is connected directly with and incidental to the business of assessee. In this connection, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on pa…

M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Dcit 1(1), Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/O M. Mehta & Co, 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaacb7112P Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra,Cas Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Bhagirath Coach & DCIT 1(1), Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/o M. Mehta & Co, 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AAACB7112P Revenue by Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra,CAs Date of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above caption…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…1/137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.155/2016 C/W I.T.A.No.458/2013, I.T.A.No.467/2015 I.T.A.No.173/2017, I.T.A.No.172/2017 I.T.A.No.155/2016 Between: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.R. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distil…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…1/137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.155/2016 C/W I.T.A.No.458/2013, I.T.A.No.467/2015 I.T.A.No.173/2017, I.T.A.No.172/2017 I.T.A.No.155/2016 Between: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building, Queens Road Bangalore-560001. 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore. …Appellants (By Mr. E.R. Indrakumar, Sr. Counsel for Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, Advocate) And: M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distil…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 751/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

…– in a sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim made by the assessee as a deduction u/s. 28 of the Act by taking note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Ramchandran Shivnarayaan Vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “It is to be remembered that the direct and proximate connection and nexus must be between business operations and the loss. It goes without saying that a business man has to keep money either when he gets it as sale proceeds of the stock in trade or for disbursement to meet the business expe…

Organon (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 195Section 40

…– in a sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim made by the assessee as a deduction u/s. 28 of the Act by taking note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Ramchandran Shivnarayaan Vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “It is to be remembered that the direct and proximate connection and nexus must be between business operations and the loss. It goes without saying that a business man has to keep money either when he gets it as sale proceeds of the stock in trade or for disbursement to meet the business expe…

Exterior-Interior Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2224/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.P.Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2

…This ground is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel representing assessee quotes case law in CIT vs Smt Pukhraj Wati Bubber 296 ITR 290 (Punjab & Haryana), Badridas Daga vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC), CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd 55 ITR 707 (SC), Ramchandra Shivnarayan vs CIT 111 ITR 263 (AP) to plead that any loss caused by way of dacoity, embezzlement is a trading loss allowable u/s 37 of the Act in the event of a direct nexus between theft vis-avis the relevant business operations. Learned counsel therefore contends that the assessee is very much entitled to get deduction of the impugned swindling (supra) committed by its ex-d…

Ramesh Kumar Jain, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Mysore

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

ITA 952/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)
Section 234A

…11 and not in the present year i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13. He placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his claim that this should be allowed as deduction in the present year. These judgements are as under. A) Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (111 ITR 263 (SC)) B) CIT Vs. P.V. Gore & Co. (143 ITR 922 (BOM)) C) Jitmal& Sons Vs. ITO (11 TTJ 0160 (IndoreTrib) D) DCIT Vs. Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. (33 CCH 200 Del Trib.) E) Silicon Graphics Systems (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (106 TTJ (Del) 1153) 5. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted that none of…

Suri Engineers Private Limited., Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4)., Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 1387/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Suri Engineers Pvt. Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(4), Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan- Aaccs8544A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Jagadisan Revenue By : Smt. Suman Malik

For Appellant: Shri V. JagadisanFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)

…o him, no prejudice was caused to the revenue and in fact it has be allowed during the relevant assessment year. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the following case law: a. Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC). b. Ramchander Shivnarayan 111 ITR 263 (SC). 7 M/s Suri Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. c. Dr. T.A Quershi Vs CIT 287 ITR 547. d. CIT Vs Nainital Bank Ltd., 55 ITR 707 (SC). e. Chenab Forest Co. Vs CIT 96 ITR 568 (J &K). f. CIT Vs Inden Biselers 181 ITR 69 (Madras). g. Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs ACIT 65 SOT 15. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities bel…

Gxs India Technology Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR)
Section 234DSection 28Section 37(1)

…is allowable as business loss or not. Hence this judgment is also not applicable in the present case because the facts are different. 9. The next judgment is judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT as reported in 111 ITR 263. In this case, the dispute was regarding claim of the assessee in respect of cash brought by the assessee to business place of the assessee for buying securities and the dispute was as to whether such loss was incidental to carrying on of business of purchase of government securities to earn profit and therefore, it was deductible as business tra…