Solid Containers Ltd. v. DCIT

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…on in the year under consideration, so, action under provisions of Section 263 of the Act is not justified. 6.3 Reliance was placed by ld. Departmental Representative on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (2009) 308 ITR 417 (Bom.) does not apply to case before us because in Solid Containers Ltd. (supra), there was in fact remission of liability which evident from fact that by consent between parties liability came to an end. While in case before us is liability still exist and no cause of action arose in the year under consideration for invoking provisions of Sectio…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Santogen Silk Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1700/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(3)-1, Santogen Silk Mills Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 201, 2Nd Floor, 69-A, Midc Industrial Area, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Andheri East, Mumbai-93 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7361 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. C. Jain

…its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 30.12.2011. 2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.), relying on the decisions in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 417 (Bom) and CIT v. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC), brought the principal amount of the loan waiver of Rs.460.93 lacs – allowed to the assessee during the year by M/s. Karur Vyasa Bank Ltd. and Indian Bank (per the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) arrived at with them), to tax u/s. 28(iv) of the Act, which reads as unde…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…he Ld. DR also relied upon the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, reported in [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC) and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Solid Containers Limited. Vs. Deputy vs DCIT, reported in [2009] 308 ITR 417. 16. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, it cannot be disputed that the money was received as share application money to finance the expansion of the project. This is evident from the inward remittance certificate by the bank and approval of the RBI. The treatment of the amount in the books of account cannot be the determinative factor for…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…he Ld. DR also relied upon the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, reported in [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC) and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Solid Containers Limited. Vs. Deputy vs DCIT, reported in [2009] 308 ITR 417. 16. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, it cannot be disputed that the money was received as share application money to finance the expansion of the project. This is evident from the inward remittance certificate by the bank and approval of the RBI. The treatment of the amount in the books of account cannot be the determinative factor for…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

…he Ld. DR also relied upon the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd, reported in [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC) and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Solid Containers Limited. Vs. Deputy vs DCIT, reported in [2009] 308 ITR 417. 16. Before us, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, it cannot be disputed that the money was received as share application money to finance the expansion of the project. This is evident from the inward remittance certificate by the bank and approval of the RBI. The treatment of the amount in the books of account cannot be the determinative factor for…

Sanjeev Motwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amit Shukla (Jm)

…any deduction for Rs.14.90 lakhs (Rs.59.90 lakhs less Rs.45.00 lakhs), the question of assessing the same u/s 41(1) shall not arise. 7. The Ld CIT(A) has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd (308 ITR 417) to sustain the addition of Rs.14.40 lakhs made by the AO. In our view, the above said decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court shall apply only if there is waiver of any part of principal amount. In the instant case, we notice that the assessee was given over draft facility for a sum of Rs.35.00 lakhs and the principal amount shown by the assessee…

Trigyn Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Trigyn Technologies Limited, C/O. M/S. Ravi & Dev, Chartered Accountants, 601, ‘A’Wing, Aurus Chambers, Behind Mahindra Towers, S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400013 Pan:Aaacl2065K ... Appellant

…m) the impugned sum was not liable to be taxed as income. It was pointed out that the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee by merely applying a subsequent judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd. vs. CIT, 308 ITR 417(Bom) without appreciating that the said judgement was inapplicable to the facts of the case. Be that as it may, the learned AR pointed out that the claim of the assessee 5 made in the return of income was based on a judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) which was available at that point of ti…

DCIT 3(3), Mumbai vs. Rama Industries Ltd, Mumbai

…eference shareholders would rank after them in priority of distribution of assets, that the waiver of reference capital is a capital restructuring exercise. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO referred to the case of Solid Containers Ltd.(308 ITR 417),delivered by the Hon’ble position High Court and held that assessee had acquired benefit of waiver of principal amounts, that it had no liability to make payment of Rs. 7.45crores,that the amount in question received by the assessee,being waiver,was chargeable to tax.Accordingly,he made an addition of Rs.7,45,64, 838/- to the total income of the…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Zyma Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit- 10(1), M/S Zyma Laboratories Ltd. 455, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. Pan: Aaacz0199A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…170 of I.T. Act, hence condition no. (ii) was not fulfilled. A.O’s addition is not tenable in law. 14. The AO while making the addition relied upon the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundram Iyngar & Sons reported vide 222 ITR 344(SC) and Solid Containers Ltd. vs. DCIT 308 ITR 417 on the issue of treating the loan as trading liability. The fact of the T.V. Sundram Iyngar case are entirely different from the fact of the case in our hand the case in our hand in respect of re-payment of loan which was assigned on account of scheme of amalgamation which was approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in the case of T.V.Sundram,…

Lavlesh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

…se of Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd.(supra). 7.3 The decisions relied upon by the first appellate authority are not in consonance with the facts of the case in hand and are therefore, misplaced. For example, the decision in the case of Solid Containers vs. CIT, 308 ITR 417 (Bom) relates to waiver of loan under the consent terms which was transferred to P&L Account. There is no waiver of loan in the case in hand nor there is any consent term and also there is no transfer to P&L Account. Similarly, in the case of T.V.Sundaram Inyengar Sons(supra), deposits were received from the customers Account. However, in the cas…