How many judgments cite Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT?

74 judgments on BharatTax cite Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT (308 ITR 417), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 41(1), Section 28(iv), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 133A, Section 142(2A).

Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT

308 ITR 417High Court2009#1540 most cited

What is Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The write-back or waiver of a loan obtained for business purposes constitutes taxable business income under Section 28. This applies even if no prior deduction was claimed, thereby not attracting Section 41(1).

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Solid Containers Ltd v DCIT · Section 41(1) · Section 28 · Section 28(iv) · waiver of loan · remission of liability · cessation of liability · write back of business loan · trading advance write-off · business income · capital receipt

Also reported as

222 CTR 455

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 28(iv)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133A Section 142(2A)Section 250 Section 43(5)

Issues it is cited on

waiver of loan section 256(2)section 28(iv)remission or cessation of liability section 256 substance over form section 41(1)speculation loss section 73 resulting company section 43(5)section 41

Judgments citing Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

Section 250

…becomes the assessee's own money because of limitation or by any other statutory or contractual right. When such a thing happens, commonsense demands that the amount should be treated as income of the assessee." 28. In Solid Containers Limited Vs. D.C.I.T. [308 ITR 417], a Bench of the Bombay High Court was concerned with a case, in which, a loan obtained by the assessee during the previous year for business purposes was written back as a result of the consent terms between the parties. The assessee claimed that the loan was the capital receipt and was not claimed as deduction from the taxable income as expense…

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

Section 250

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

Section 250

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)

Section 250

ITO 3(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. NOUVEAU CAPITAL & FINANCE LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2942/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-3(2)(3), M/S. Nouveau Capital & 6Th Floor, Finance Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 113, Mittal Chambers, M.K.Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aaacn3638E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Hitesh P. Shah For Revenue : Ms. Monika H. Pande Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 28Section 41(1)

…cash. Hence, the AO was not right in invoking the provisions of sec.28(iv) of the Act. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the AO has stated that the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd (178 Taxman 192)(308 ITR 417)(Bom) would be applicable to the facts of the present case. We are unable to agree with the same. In the case of Solid Containers Ltd (supra), the said assessee had received “trading advance” during the course of carrying on business. Hence, write off of the above said trading advance was held 3 to be taxable by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court and…

SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 625/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 28Section 40Section 92C

…not, which requirement is satisfied in the facts of the case. It is also noted that the ratio laid down by the Apex court decision in the case of CIT vs. TV Sundaram lyengar & Sons (222 ITR 344) and the High Court's decisions in Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417), Logitronics Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (333 ITR 386), would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the view of the Ld. Assessing officer and accordingly the impugned disallowance is upheld. Ground dismissed.” 11. The ld AR argued that - No 'benefit' to the Assessee. (i) The equipments are given to the Assessee by th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. INTERKILN INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 947/AHD/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Interkiln Industries P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sanghvi Chambers B/H. Canara Bank Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaaci 4563 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jaimin A. Gandhi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Dated 5.10.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 24Section 250Section 28Section 41(1)

…u/s 28(iv) of the Act. Before us, the ld.DR has pointed out that the taxability of loan wavier has been dealt with by the Apex Court and several other High Courts in a series of decisions u/s 41(1) of the Act, i.e. – i) Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2009) 308 ITR 417; ii) CIT Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344; iii) Logitronics P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 333 ITR 386, (Delhi); iv) Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2011) 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) and the ratio of all these decisions is that if the loan has been taken for trading purpose waiver of such loan would tantamount to cessation of liability ,liable to ta…

SHAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 859/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)

…sed. Also, the assessing officer sought to verify and determine whether loan waived by the bank is to be added to the total income of the assessee within the meaning of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd versus DCIT (308 ITR 417). Therefore, it can be seen that the assessing officer sought to verify and determine to issues as under- a) Verification and determination taxability of interest claimed by the assessee b) Verification and determination taxability of principal amount waived off 4.1 It may be appreciated that the assessing officer has initiated the reassessment p…

ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. IDEAL DATA ELECTRONIC APPLICATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3056/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3056/Ahd/2015 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 I.T.O, Ideal Data Electronic Application Ltd., Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Swastik Chamber, Ahmedabad. 42-Navjeevan Press Road, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad380014. Pan: Aaaci3657A

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, with Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 28Section 41(1)

…41(1) of the Act. The AO in support of his view has referred to various judgements which are detailed below: CIT vs. A.V.M. Ltd [1985] 21 taxman 232 (Madras) CIT vs. T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) 4.1 In addition to the above, the AO also found that the amount of money received by the assessee from the party was invested in acquiring the shares of the group company of M/s Marwar Hotels. Later, the assessee sold such shares to the group company of M/s Marwar Hotels at a loss. Thus, the assessee has returned the money almost in ent…

SUMANGAL GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHACHAU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2636/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 194CSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…ents. 1. CIT vs Ramaniyam Homes P Ltd (Madras High Court) 384 ITR 530 (Madras)/[2016) 287 CTR 200 (Madras) 2. [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC)/[1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC)/[1996] 136 CTR 444 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. T.V. Sundaiam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. 3. [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Bombay)/[2009] 222 CTR 455 (Bombay) Solid Containers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 20. The relevant extract of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), is reproduced as under: Considering the above position, it is clear that any waiver of loan is a benefit accruing to the assessee by virtue of his running the business and so is taxable under sec…

GRAND FOUNDRY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE -7(1)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3051/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…sheet. Therefore vide order sheet entry dated 15/03/2016, the Assessee was asked “as to why said amount be not considered as income during the year under consideration, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bom)”. The Assessee has not brought on record any material in support of its action, therefore, the Assessing Officer also added the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- under section 41(1) of the Act, to the income of the Assessee. 5. Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that for the year under consideration, the Assessee has claimed loss of Rs.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 915/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 3Section 32(2)

…s of the assessee as the loans were taken in the course of business was regarded as benefit in the revenue field. 9. The ld. AR fairly conceded that the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. reported in 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) and Logitronics (P.) Ltd. reported in 333 ITR 386 (Delhi) are against the assessee, however, supported the order of CIT(A) and vehemently opposed the decision preferred by the ld. DR in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (supra) and Rollatainers Ltd. (supra). 10. As relied on by the ld. DR in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar…

ITO WARD-4(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASHIK WOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of revenue is allowed in terms indicated here

ITA 3021/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…nsidered the issue from the standpoint of principal laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (1966) 222 ITR 344. (d) In Solid Containers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2009) 308 ITR 417], the Bombay High Court applying the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (supra) distinguished its decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and has held that on waiver of loan taken for business purposes, the amount is retained in the business and as such, the amount that initially did not have the character of income becomes inco…

JSW STEELS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…equires to be taxed as income of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Income tax Act. Reliance in support of the above stand is placed on the ratio applied by the Bombay high court in the case of M/s Solid Containers Ltd vs DY. CIT. Spl. Range-1, Mumbai reported in 308 ITR 417. Reliance is: Iso placed on the ratio applied in the following cases: 1. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 22. ITR 344 (SC) 2. CIT V Aries Advertising (P) Ltd 255 ITR 510 (Madras) 11.4 The amount of Rs. 12,67,68,491/- is added to the income of the assessee u/s 28(iv) of the Income tax Act.” M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. ITA no.2116/Mum./2017 The learned DRP re…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. CENTWIN ESTATES AND INDUSTRIES P LTD, CHENNAI

In the result revenue’s appeal stand dismissed which makes assessee’s cross-objections academic in nature

ITA 29/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

…iating the advance received Binny Ltd was a trading liability and when the lender of such trading liability the amount either fully or in part such amount so waived or foregone is chargeable tax as income as held in the case of Solid Containers Ltd v. Dy. CIT 308 ITR 417 (Bom). 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding the retained advance is still shown as in the Balance sheet and hence cannot be taxed u/s 41(1) without appreciating decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs Chipsoft Technology 2012(DELHI)-O] wherein it was held that where the assessee has just continued the entry in his books of ac…

M/S. MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2577/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…or not, which requirement is satisfied in the facts of the case. We also note that the ratio laid down by the Apex court decision in the case of CIT vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (222 ITR 344) and the High Court's decisions in Solid Containers Ltd vs. DCIT (308 ITR 417), Logitronics Private Limited vs. CIT (333 IT(TP)A No.2577/Bang/2019 Page 24 of 27 ITR 386), would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the view of the Assessing officer and accordingly the impugned disallowance is upheld.” 34. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower autho…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. COOPER STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P LTD., CHENGALPUT

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

ITA 794/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [Pan:Aabcc3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 05.01.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is As To Whether The Waiver Of Loan Amount Taken For Business Purposes Is Assessable As Business Income Under Section 28(Iv) R.W.S. 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…had become the assessee's own money. The claims of customer became barred by limitation and the assessee treated the same as its own money taking the same the P & L a/c. The ratio has been followed in the other relied upon case of Solid Containers Ltd v. DCIT 308 ITR 417. 18. The facts of the case at hand is materially different. The AO has himself recorded that consequent to global acquisition of Invensys PLC the Indian company, by M/s Cooper Tire & Rubber Company in 8.3.2001 the appellant company had recorded acquisition by absorbing assets and liabilities of M/s Invensys India P Ltd. One of the liabilities abs…

DCIT CC7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…s held that the facts in the case of the assessee is different from the facts in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra and the case of the assessee is in fact covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. v/s. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (BOM). In this regard the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that:- "following & relying on CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram lyengar & Sons Ltd. 136 CTR (SC) 444 and CIT vs. Aries Advertising (P) Ltd. 255 ITR 510 (Mad.) and distinguishing Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom). The High Court of Bombay in Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 41…

ACIT CENT. CIR 5(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SUNIL B.DALAL, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

…e Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting an addition of Rs.42,45,000/- made u/s.28(iv) of the I.T. Act as loan taken for business purpose is written back without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. v/s DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (Bom) and Hon'ble Supreme court decision in the case of CIT v/s T.V. Sundaram lyenger & Sons Ltd (1998) 222 ITR 344. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 1,51,53,000/- made u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act without appreciating strict provision of the Act. 3. The appellant craves l…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. KAPTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…s connection, reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Tobacco Co. v. CIT, 132 CTR 559 wherein it was held that gratuity reserve is appropriation of profit. The Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT, 308 ITR 417 (Bom) referred and considered the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.'s case (supra) where it was held that if an amount is received in course of a trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of capital character, yet the amount changes its character when the amount becomes the assessee's own money…

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4