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#1535 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 366,470 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

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1317/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(vd)Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…to have appreciated that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and sons Limited reported in 222 ITR 344 had no application to the case of the 'Appellant and the Bombay High court in the case of Solid Containers Limited (308 ITR 417) was distinguishable and accordingly ought to have refrained from relying on these judgments. 5. Without prejudices the addition as made by the Assessing Authority is excessive, arbitrary 86 unreasonable 86 ought to be reduced substantially. 6. For these and other grounds that may be argued at the time of hearing of the appeal the Appellant pray…

ACIT, Haryana vs. M/S. S.K. Foils Ltd., Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in

ITA 3504/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani Pan No. Aabcs8183Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT S. K. Foils Ltd. Circle Bhiwani Vs 17, Industrial Area Haryana Bhiwani PAN No. AABCS8183Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Vinod Jain, CA Date of hearing: 16/12/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13/01/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Hisar dated 31.03.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2011-12. 2. The grievance of the revenue rea…

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

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7151/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7151/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Greatship (India) Ltd. Dcit-5(1)(1) बिाम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Esplande House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-8542-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Assails Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2017 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-I, Mumbai U/S 144C(5) Dated 28/09/2017. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande- Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 28Section 92BSection 92C

…16 Taxman 77; 06/02/2001) as well as the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (116 ITR 1; 27/09/1978). 3.7 However, Ld. AO, relying upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Limited V/s DCIT (222 CTR 455; 29/08/2008) opined that the assessee advanced loans to its subsidiaries to spread its own business through subsidiaries and any profit yielded from such investments, whether by way of interest or exchange fluctuation would be revenue receipt which call for taxation u/s 28 of the Act. The decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court CIT Vs TV Sundaram Iyeng…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…hindra vs. CIT, reported in 261 ITR 501. Similarly, in a later judgment Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Softworks Computers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 354 ITR 16, after considering the said judgment and also the judgment of Solid containers Ltd., reported in 308 ITR 417, observed and held as under:- “7. We find that the decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers Ltd. (supra) has also considered the earlier decision in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and distinguished the same by holding that in that case the loan was given for purchase of capital assets unlike in the case of Solid…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Ltd vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/219/2011HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 263

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.219 OF 2011 BETWEEN: M/S. I.G. PETROCHEMICALS LTD, D-4, JYOTHI COMPLEX 134/1, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI. MADAN MOHAN DHANUKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O SRI. HANUMAN PRASAD DHANUKA. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.JINITHA CHATTERJEE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE-560001.…

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

…d. (supra), neither the Tribunal nor this Court considered the issue from the stand point of principal laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [1966] 222 ITR 344 . (d) In Solid Containers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [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…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Softworks Computers (P.) Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 16/216 Taxman 219 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 610 (Bom.), after considering the said judgment and also the 33 M/s. Batliboi Limited judgment of Solid Containers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 417/178 Taxman 192 (Bom.), observed and held as under:— "7. We find that the decision of this court in the matter of Solid Containers Ltd. (supra) has also considered the earlier decision in the matter of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra) and distinguished the same by holding that in that case the loan was given for purchase of capital assets unlike…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…esulted in a benefit to the assessee which is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) referring to the decision of CIT vs. Sunderam Iyengar (supra) and relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT, 308 ITR 417,(Bom) held that the loan received by an assessee, which is ultimately retained in the business upon waiver of the loan, is taxable as receipt of the benefit by the appellant under section 28(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the benefit arising to the Appellant is taxable as revenue receipt. 27. The ld senior counsel of the appellant submitted the or…

M/S. Ok Play India Ltd., Haryana vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3402/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 194CSection 195Section 40

…ding purposes and was treated as such from very beginning in the books of accounts, the waiver may result in the income. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. versus Dy. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (Bom.) and decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aries Advertising Private Limited (2002) 255 ITR 510. 3.3 In view of the decisions relied upon, the ld. CIT(A) held that amount of gain on discount of FCCB has to be subjected to tax in the year in which such instrument has been discounted and consequent gain resulted wou…

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…5 of 2018 (Paras 15 and 16), the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act cannot be applied to borrowings which have been utilised for capital purposes. (i) Reliance placed by the Ld. DR on judgment of the High Court at Bombay in Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417, which had been followed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Golden Tobbaco Ltd. (copies handed over by the Ld. DR at 34 I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 M/s International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the time of hearing), have no application to the facts of the present case. In those cases, it was an admitted position…

M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR

Section 28Section 3

…ting unclaimed credit balances written back to profit and loss account by assessee during assessment year under consideration, could be treated as assessee's income and liable to be taxed. v. Solid Containers Ltd. Vs DCIT f20091 178 Taxman 192 (Bombay)/r20091 308 ITR 417 (Bombay)/r20091 222 CTR 455 (Bombay), where Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld addition where assessee had taken a loan from 'P' during previous year for business purposes which was written back in relevant assessment year as a result of consent terms arrived at between 'P' and assessee. Assessee claimed that said loan was a capital receipt and, th…

M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR

Section 28Section 3

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acorus Wireless Unitech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR

Section 28Section 3

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rama Phosphates Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14Section 14A

…financial institutions, without appreciating the fact that waiver of loan taken for acquiring capital assets is 2 M/s. Rama Phosphates Ltd. to be treated as income as held in the order of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ld Vs. DCIT (2O09) (308 ITR 417)." 4. Grounds of appeal assessment year 2011-12 :- 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A has to be computed as per Rule 8D when the computation of the assessee was not found to be correct and as held in the order of the Hon'b…

ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Ms. Anadi Verma, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Lakhani, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 3638/Mum/2014 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2005-06) The Income Tax Officer, Aristo Realty Developers Ward 6(1)(3), R. No. 508, Ltd. 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 16th Floor, C-Wing, Trade Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-20 Word Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सु…

The DCIT, Circle -4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1903/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1547/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gujarat State Financial Vs. ACIT, Corporation, Block No.10, Circle – 4, Sector-11, Udhoyog Bhavan, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar – 382017. I.T.A. No. 1903/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT, Vs. Gujarat State Financial Circle – 4, Corporation, Block No.10, Ahmedabad Sector-11, Udhoyog Bhavan, Gandhinagar – 382017. [PAN No. AABCG 2924 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P. F. Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Anshu P…

Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1547/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Topical Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6089/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito-7(3)(2), M/S. Topical Builders P. Ltd. Room No.616, 6Th Floor, (Now Known As M/S. Mahindra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, World City (Maharashtra Ltd.), Mumbai-400020. 5Th Floor, Mahindra Tower, P.K. Vs. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aabct2713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Respondent By : Shri H.P. Mahajani With Shri Prasad Bapat (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri H.P. Mahajani with Shri Prasad Bapat (AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 28

…. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that loan liability written off of Rs. 521.60 lacs cannot be taxed u/s 28(iv) without taking into consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 308 ITR 417. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Builders and Developers filed his return of income on 08.09.2010 declaring total income Loss Rs. (-) 3,309/-. 3. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 25.03.2013 under section 143(3). During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the…

The ITO, Corporate WD-2(4), Kochi vs. M/S.Team Front Line Ltd, Kochi

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is treated to be allowed

ITA 502/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…ferred and/or retained in the Reserve and Surplus account of the assessee. The following observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.’s case has been noted by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs DCIT (308 ITR 417): “22. The principle laid down by Atkinson J. applies in full force to the facts of this case. If a common sense view of the matter is taken, the assessee because of the trading operation had become richer by the amount, which is transferred to its profit and loss account. The moneys had arisen out of ordinary trading transactions. Although the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Opera House Exports Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2453/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 41(1)Section 68

…th section 2(24) of the Act are applicable. 5 2. CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar 222 ITR 112 (SC)[1996] 3.Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CIT 339 ITR 54 (Delhi) (MAG.) [2011] 4. CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes (P.) Ltd. 384 ITR 530 (Madras) [2016] 5. Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 (Bombay) [2009] 6.CIT vs. Aries Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 510 (Mad.)” 4. The learned AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the additions without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The assessee during the assessment proceedings has submitted complete details as required by t…