Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 43High Court2010#12662 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

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

…tion cannot be treated as a debt at the first place and hence its write- off does not fall under the purview of S.36(1)(vii) read with S.36(2)(ii). Therefore the assessee fails on this count, as well. In the case of Salem Magnesite (P) Ltd. vs CIT reported in 321 ITR 43, the High Court of Bombay on an issue of similar write-off of loan, it pronounced that "The amount written off was not deductible as business loss since loan given was not incidental to its business of mining, even if it has some connection with it." There cannot be a more appropriate decisions on this aspect since the fact situation in the cases…

SEVEN SEAS DISTILLERY PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2498/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2498/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Seven Seas Distillery Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, V Block, 7Th Floor, Kences Vs. Income Tax, Enclave, Ramakrishna Nagar, Corporate Circle 6(1), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aadcs0200Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, In Ita No. 636/2016- 17/Cit(A)-15 Dated 28.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. M/S. Seven Seas Distillery Pvt. Ltd., The Assessee, Is Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor [Imfl In Short] Of The Brands Belonging To M/S. United Spirits Ltd. Besides, It Also Obtains Output On Job Work Basis From M/S. Elite Distilleries, Kerala. While Making The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 36(2)

…assessee’s business. The assessee could not demonstrate in terms of accounts that it has fulfilled the conditions stipulated under section 36(2) of the Act and applied the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Salem Magnesite P. Ltd. v. CIT 321 ITR 43. With regard to the assessee’s chit loss claim, the ld. CIT(A) held, inter alia, that the assessee 3 I.T.A. No.2498/Chny/19 could not explain how a loss incurred in a chit loan can be claimed as a revenue loss and hence dismissed the appeal. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The case was heard thr…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. TIPS INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6291/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of S.P. Shrivastava & Sons vs. CIT 86 ITR 730(All.), CIT vs. Chidambaranath Mudliyar 240 ITR 552(Mad.) & Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT in 91 ITD 412(Mumbai ITAT). Further, reference reliance is also placed in the case of Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 321 ITR 43(Bom). Thus, advance of Rs.20 lakhs claimed to be irrecoverable is a loss of capital hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 8. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03.07.2017 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal challenging appellate order of learned CIT(A) on both the aforesaid…

TIPS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6196/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of S.P. Shrivastava & Sons vs. CIT 86 ITR 730(All.), CIT vs. Chidambaranath Mudliyar 240 ITR 552(Mad.) & Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT in 91 ITD 412(Mumbai ITAT). Further, reference reliance is also placed in the case of Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 321 ITR 43(Bom). Thus, advance of Rs.20 lakhs claimed to be irrecoverable is a loss of capital hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 8. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03.07.2017 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal challenging appellate order of learned CIT(A) on both the aforesaid…

TIPS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6195/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of S.P. Shrivastava & Sons vs. CIT 86 ITR 730(All.), CIT vs. Chidambaranath Mudliyar 240 ITR 552(Mad.) & Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT in 91 ITD 412(Mumbai ITAT). Further, reference reliance is also placed in the case of Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 321 ITR 43(Bom). Thus, advance of Rs.20 lakhs claimed to be irrecoverable is a loss of capital hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 8. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03.07.2017 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal challenging appellate order of learned CIT(A) on both the aforesaid…

TIPS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue in ITA no

ITA 6194/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6194 To 6196/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Tips Industries Ltd., Acit 11(1) 601, Durga Chambers, Room No. 439, 6T H Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhawan V. Khar West, M.K.Marg Mumbai 400054 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaact5284A

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of S.P. Shrivastava & Sons vs. CIT 86 ITR 730(All.), CIT vs. Chidambaranath Mudliyar 240 ITR 552(Mad.) & Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. DCIT in 91 ITD 412(Mumbai ITAT). Further, reference reliance is also placed in the case of Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 321 ITR 43(Bom). Thus, advance of Rs.20 lakhs claimed to be irrecoverable is a loss of capital hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.” 8. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03.07.2017 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the tribunal challenging appellate order of learned CIT(A) on both the aforesaid…

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1304/CHNY/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: 29.08.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

…s not fall under the purview of S.36(1 )(vii) read with S.36(2)(ii). Therefore, the appellant fails on this count, as well.” 4.3 Thereafter relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Salem Magnesite (P) Ltd. vs CIT reported in 321 ITR 43, decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT,Bombay vs. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar reported in 41 ITR 545 (SC) and Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) reported in 34 ITR 10 (SC), the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by holding as under:- “The lending of Rs.5 crores to Mrs Sandhya Mulchandani may have some connection with the business…

QUANTUM ADVISORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 2050/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia
Section 37

…e day– to–day business expenditures of the assessee as is evident from the details of expenditure submitted before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As far as the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2010] 321 ITR 43 (Bom.) relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we must observe that in the said case, the expenditure incurred was held to be capital in nature as it was for construction of a jetty. Whereas, in the case of the present assessee, the subsidiary has not created any capital asset out of the amount received from the assessee. Therefore, in…

Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 43) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax