Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. v. JCIT

343 ITR 296High Court2012#9006 most cited

What is Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. v. JCIT authority for?

The provision for bad and doubtful debts should be added back to the book profit for the purpose of computing the tax liability under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This is in line with decisions from other High Courts.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v JCIT · Section 115JB · MAT · book profit · bad and doubtful debts · addition · income tax

Judgments citing Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. v. JCIT

M/S Terecom (P) Ltd., Goa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/PAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

…r bad and doubtful debts should be added back to the book profit for the purpose of computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act. In this connection, we also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIL Ltd. vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 296 (Bom.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. Union of 5 India, 355 ITR 51 (Delhi). Thus, the ground of appeal nos.(F) to (K) filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 06th day of October, 2023. (PARTHA…

Vialle Alternative Fuel Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4134/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…not contemplate the performance of an impossible act. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SIL Investment Ltd 339 ITR 166. 15. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DIL ltd 343 ITR 296 has held as under: “Held, allowing the petition, that the reasons for reopening contained no reference to there being any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The primary requirement set out in the proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not been fulfilled.…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…arguments:  Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi and Others 355 ITR 102 (Bom)  State Bank of Patiala v. CIT 375 ITR 109 (P&H)  Ajay Oxychloride Floorings v. ACIT 283 ITR 169 (Bom)  Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd v. JCIT 340 ITR 144 (Mad)  DIL Ltd v. ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom)  Sitara Diamond Pvt Ltd v. DCIT 345 ITR 91 (Bom)  ACIT v. ICICI Security Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 299  CIT v. Ramakrishna Hegde [2010] 326 ITR 347 (Kar.)  CIT v. Standard Chartered Finance Ltd. [2012] 207 Taxman 136 (Kar.)  Parixit Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 352 1TR 349 (Gujarat) On the contrary, Ld.CIT.DR supported the…

Aroma Organics Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD- 14-(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3037/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Aroma Organics Limited, 106-110, Krishna Bhavan Annex, Income Tax Officer-14(1)(2), 22/B.S.D. Marg, Govandi, Mumbai Mumbai Vs. [Pan : Aaaca5370J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sekhar Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…nt year. It was submitted by him that in the absence of such allegation of the AO, the reopening is not valid and in support of these contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIL Ltd., Vs. ACIT [343 ITR 296] (Bom). 4. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered the submissions. I find that in the facts of the present case, first proviso to Section 147 is applicable. This proviso reads as under: “Sec.147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment…

Sanghi Industries Ltd, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…erial facts. Ld. Counsel relied on the principles laid down by the following three cases: i. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT and another [361 ITR 429] (AP); ii. CIT Vs. Arvind Remedies Ltd., [378 ITR 547] (Mad); iii. DIL Ltd., Vs. ACIT and Others [343 ITR 296] (Bom); 6. Ld.CIT-DR, however, in reply elaborately explained the provisions of Section 80HHC, withdrawal of deduction u/s. 80HHC w.e.f. AY. 2006-07 and the fact that assessee has claimed deduction which is not allowable u/s. 115JB. When pointed out that assessee is not contesting the issue on merits, only on the issue of reopening u/s. 147 for…

Nahira Cosmetic Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 7791/MUM/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhnahira Cosmetic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 7, Lalwani Indl. Estate, 14, Katrak Road, P.O.Box 7117, Wadala, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaacn 0267D ...... Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 7(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer do not contain any averment that the conditions prescribed in the first proviso to section 147 of the Act are fulfilled. In support, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIL Ltd. vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 296(Bom). 4.1 In order to appreciate the aforesaid plea, we may refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are placed at page 24 of the Paper Book, and which read as under:- “A Survey u/s. 133A was conducted on the assessee’s office premises on11.2.2000. During the course of survey, evidence was found that the payment of Rs.6.75…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. Jnj Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 707/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e ld.counsel of the assessee placed reliance before us on the following judgements: 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R.B. Wadkar, A.C.IT.268 ITR 332 (Bom) 2. Allanasons Ltd. v DC IT 369 ITR 648 (Bom) 3. Business India v Jt. CIT 370 ITR 154 (Bom) 4. DIL Ltd. v ACIT 343 ITR 296 (Bom) 5. Monitor India P Ltd. v Union of India 343 ITR 236 (Bom) 4.2 We have gone through these judgments and find force in the arguments’ of ld.counsel of the assessee. The reasons are not sustainable in the eyes of law as no case is made out in the reasons about the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts nec…

M/S R. Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1729/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Negi, Senior DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234BSection 234D

…the assessment can be reopened after the expiry of four years from expiry of assessment year on the basis of the retrospective amendment”? 9 ITA No.1729/Del./2013 14. Ld. AR for the assessee by relying upon the judgment cited as DIL Ltd. vs. ACIT – (2012) 343 ITR 296 (Bom.) contended that the AO is not empowered to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years on the basis of retrospective amendment. 15. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dil Ltd. (supra) held as under :- “Section 115JB, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Minimum alternate tax - Non-disclosure of primary fac…