How many judgments cite Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT (339 ITR 54), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.

339 ITR 54High Court2011#4575 most cited

What is Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Waiver of a loan taken for business purposes constitutes a remission or cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, making it taxable as business income under Section 28.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT · section 41(1) · section 28 · waiver of loan · business income · cash credit · remission of liability · taxable income · company · previous year

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 111

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act Section 28 of the Income Tax Act Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loan section 28(iv)section 41(1)section 41 section 28 liable to tax previous year person business company india interest

Judgments citing Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT

The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7664/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblevs The Fertilizer Corporation Of India Ltd. Addl. Cit(A) Pdil Bhawan (5Th Floor), Room No. 193B, A-14, Sector-1 Noida C. R. Building, Aaacf1661P Special Range-9 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…sation of liability. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that there was no waiver of interest and Section 41(1) is rightly attracted by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 54(Delhi) wherein it is held that wavier of loan taken in the course of carrying on business was recorded in the benefit of Revenue and accordingly addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessment order as well as the CIT(A) order be sustained and no interference be called thereupon. 8. We have hea…

Skylark Hospitality India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we reverse the order of the Ld

ITA 6431/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiskylark Hospitality India (P) Vs. Dy. Cit, Ltd, Circle-9(1), Formerly Known As Ssp New Delhi Catering India P Ltd, 404, 4Th Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kg Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aalcs7159J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 201Section 28Section 32(1)Section 40Section 40a

…efit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. The Hon Delhi High Court, in Logitronics (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 386/197 Taxman 394/9 taxmann.com 302 and Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 54/15 taxmann.com 111 (Delhi), followed the decision of Hon Madras High Court in Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. and expounded the law that if a loan had been taken for acquiring a capital asset, waiver thereof would not amount to any income exigible to tax. If the loan is taken for trading purposes and was also treated as such from the beginning in the books…

M/S. Hi- Tech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6080/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jian, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Saroha, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41

…ipt. As there was no remission by any creditor, therefore the provisions of Section 41 were not 12 I.T.A.No.6080/Del/2013 applicable. Ld. A.R. placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Roll Attainers Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 339 ITR 54. 8.3 On the contrary, Ld. D.R. submitted that the said loan was taken from M/s. IFCI Ltd., for the purpose of setting up of manufacturing plant in Kerala. He submitted that the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed as there is no acquisition of any fixed asset by the assessee. Ld. D.R. emphasized that the loan was taken for trading purposes and…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3568/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 3567 & 3568/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10) M/s. Trans Impex Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Darabshaw House, S.V.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Room No.355, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AAACT5093R आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Mr. Y. K. Wadia, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Mr. Manjunath Swamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3567/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

CIT vs. Icc India P. Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms in terms

ITA/396/2012HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 28Section 41(1)

…he assessee on the other hand contended that the principles applicable in the present case were correctly applied by the Tribunal. He relied upon the judgment in Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 386 (Del.) and Rollatainers Ltd. v. CIT, (2011) 339 ITR 54 (Del.). It was submitted ITA 396/2012 Page 4 of 6 that the nature and character of the receipt, which was originally capital, did not change when the conversion takes place. In this case, both the share application liability and the capital goods imported shown in the books of accounts assessee were on capital account. T…