Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank

151 ITR 446High Court1985#6666 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 195Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(1)section 28(i)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 9(1)(i)statutory duesdcf methodstay petitionsection 5(2)slump salevaluation of sharessection 40a(2)(b)withholding tax

Judgments citing Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…der section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited under the Act. 8.5 The assessee also submitted that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…der Section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee's loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited under the Act. 8.5 The assessee also submitted that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of i…

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…der Section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee's loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited under the Act. 8.5 The assessee also submitted that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of…

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

…der section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee's loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited under the Act. 8.5 The assessee also submitted that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of i…

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

…der section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee's loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited under the Act. 8.5 The assessee also submitted that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of i…

ARYAVART BANK,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…nd truly disclose all the material facts required for re-assessment. It is seen on perusal of the assessment order that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted on account of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indian Overseas Bank 151 ITR 446 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Limited vs. CIT 156 ITR 585, but has not recorded how the said claims made by the assessee are in the nature of contingent liabilities. The matter had been raised before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) has not addressed this legal issue. We are of the opinion that b…

ADDL. CIT-(08), NEW DELHI vs. SOPRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue thus is dismissed

ITA 1175/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 145

…decisions relied upon by ld CIT (A) relate to stock-in- trade and not to unsettled forward foreign exchange contract. vi) The issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- a) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., 246 ITR 206(Mad) b) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., 151 ITR 446 (Mad) c) Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd., 208 ITR 1017 (Bom) d) Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 (Bom) e) Eveready Industries (1) Ltd., 78 ITD175 (Cal) 1) Indian Molasses Co. Ltd., 37 ITR 66 (SC) 5.2.7.2 The Special Bench thereafter, has discussed in detail the entire set of arguments put forth by the Revenue. In the concluding part of the judgment the s…

ITO 16(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. SURYA GEMS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-16(2)(4), M/S Surya Gems, बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.4, 02Nd Floor, Tardeo Road, Bhaveshwar Sgar Patel Vs. Mumbai-400007 Compound 20 Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfs6513Q याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2017 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 08/03/2017

…s decisions relied upon by ld CIT (A) relate to stock-in-trade and not to unsettled forward foreign exchange contract. vi) The issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- a) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., 246 ITR 206(Mad) b) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., 151 ITR 446 (Mad) c) Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd., 208 ITR 1017 (Bom) d) Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 (Bom) e) Eveready Industries (I) Ltd., 78 ITD175 (Cal) f) Indian Molasses Co. Ltd., 37 ITR 66 (SC) 39. Shri F.V.Irani, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no dispute regarding allowability of assessee‘s claim and the only dispute is regarding t…

D.C.I.T. CIR-12, KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. USHA MARTIN TELEMATICS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 838/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ference to accrual of income is not in agreement with the legislative intent. What is to be taxed is ‘real income’ and not the ‘notional income’ as held by judicial forums. • With regard to case laws (viz. Indian overseas Bank Ltd. 246 ITR 206 and CIT Vs. IOB 151 ITR 446) relied upon by the appellant, the AO wrongly distinguished the cases with the present case on the subject of estimated profit/anticipated loss on unsettled contracts. In fact the referred cases are in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, the case law relied by the A.O. (viz.Coca cola Exp. Corp. 158 ITR 446) is in favour of the appellant.…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…ion because it must have actually arisen and incurred not merely anticipated as certain to occur in future. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Tuticorin Alkalies Chemical and Fertilizer Vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) " Indian Overseas Bank Vs CIT 151 ITR 446 (Mad) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the allowability of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was no more res-integra and the issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. reported at 312 ITR 254. It was also stated that in th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…ion because it must have actually arisen and incurred not merely anticipated as certain to occur in future. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Tuticorin Alkalies Chemical and Fertilizer Vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) " Indian Overseas Bank Vs CIT 151 ITR 446 (Mad) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the allowability of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was no more res-integra and the issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. reported at 312 ITR 254. It was also stated that in th…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIMEX WATCHES LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…ion because it must have actually arisen and incurred not merely anticipated as certain to occur in future. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Tuticorin Alkalies Chemical and Fertilizer Vs CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) " Indian Overseas Bank Vs CIT 151 ITR 446 (Mad) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the allowability of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was no more res-integra and the issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. reported at 312 ITR 254. It was also stated that in th…

NARENDRA C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4(2)(), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14A

…We have heard learned Departmental Representative on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indian Overseas Bank (151 ITR 446), wherein Hon'ble Madras High Court held that in the case of derivatives, profit or loss cannot accrue until and unless the contracts are settled. The Assessing Officer also held that the decision rendered in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. (supra) related to the liabilities arising out of fluctuation of foreign exchange and the ratio…

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA vs. UMT INVESTMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed subject to the direction contained hereinabove

ITA 554/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjun, CIT/ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…e to accrual of income is not in agreement with the legislative intent. What is to be taxed is ‘real income’ and not the ‘notional income’ as held by judicial forums. d. With regard to case laws (viz. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd vs CIT 246 ITR 206 and CIT vs IOB 151 ITR 446 ) relied upon by the assessee, the AO wrongly distinguished loss on unsettled contracts. In fact the referred cases are in favour of the assessee. On the other hand, the case law relied by the ITA No. 554/Kol/09-C-AM M/s. UMT Investment Ltd 3 AO (viz Coca Cola Exp. Corpn 158 ITR 446 ) is in favour of the assessee. e. The case on which reliance p…

INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SERVICES P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed

ITA 5922/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2009-10 Inventurus Knowledge Services V. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 5(2)(1), C/O. Seren Properties Pvt. Ltd. 525, Aaykar Bhavan, (Sez), Unit No. 204, Build No. 5, M.K. Road, Mindspace Airoli Camp, Plot No. Mumbai - 400 020. 3, Gat No. 95, Kalwa Trans, Thane Creek, Midc Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan/Gir No. Aabck4601P

…tock-in-trade and not to unsettled forward foreign exchange contract. (vi) The issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- (a) Indian Overseas bank Ltd., 246 ITR 206(Mad) Page 25 of 44 26 Assessment year: - 2009-10 (b) Indian Overseas bank Ltd., 151 ITR 446 (Mad) (c) Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd., 208 ITR 1017 (Bom) (d) Bank of India, 218 ITR 371 (Bom) (e) Eveready Industries (I) Ltd., 78 ITD175 (Cal) (f) Indian Molasses Co. Ltd., 37 ITR 66 (SC) 39. Shri F.V.Irani, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no dispute regarding allowability of assessee's claim and the only dispute is regardin…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA-49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 23.3.2007 Date of Decision : 30.4.2007 + 1. ITA No. 49/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal & Mr. R.D. Jolly, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Mr. Ajay K. Jha & Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocates versus WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD. .... Respondent Through Mr.C.S. Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar,Advocate 2. ITA No. 159/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal & Mr. R.D. Jolly, S…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/49/2005HC Delhi30 Apr 2007

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 23.3.2007 Date of Decision : 30.4.2007 + 1. ITA No. 49/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal & Mr. R.D. Jolly, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Mr. Ajay K. Jha & Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocates versus WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD. .... Respondent Through Mr.C.S. Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar,Advocate 2. ITA No. 159/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal & Mr. R.D. Jolly, S…