Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT

134 ITR 21High Court1982#8606 most cited

What is Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT authority for?

Forfeited security deposits paid by a tendu leaves trader under a contract with a forest corporation, when the contract is not fulfilled, can be claimed as a business loss. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer is incorrect, and the claim can be allowed by the appellate authorities.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT · forfeited security deposit · business loss · tendu leaves · contract forfeiture · section 28 · section 36(1)(vii)

Also reported as

10 Taxmann 187

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 33bsection 75section 40a(9)section 80msection 80jsection 52initial assessment yearsection 80hsection 80hhcsection 80icsection 80hhsection 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir2(2), Nagpur vs. M/S Shree Agrawal Coal India Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 19/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.19/Nag./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur v/s Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. 216, Devi Kripa Society ……………. Respondent Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AAFCS6709L Assessee by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra Revenue by : Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar Date of Hearing – 14/05/2025 Date of Order – 15/05/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The aforesaid appeal by the Revenue is directed against the i…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…of license fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any ITA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd term of the license etc., was a finding of fact and no question of law arose. In Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21 (MP), the assesseefirm, carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tendu leaves, entered into a contract with Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. for the purchase of tendu leaves and in connection there with, deposited a certain sum as security with the Corporation. As the contract was not fulfilled, the Corporation forfeited the security. For th…

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3361/Ahd./2010 (A.Y: 2006–07) India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd. 1261, Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No.12, 6th Floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri –East, Mumbai –400093 PAN – AAACI4227Q ……………. Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–1(2), Baroda ……………. Respondent Assesseeby : Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari Date of Hearing : 30/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2022 ORDER PER G…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the security deposits was adjusted towards the arrears of license fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any term of the license etc., was a finding of fact and no question of law arose. In Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21 (MP), the assessee- firm, carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tendu leaves, entered into a contract with Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. for the purchase of tendu leaves and in connection there with, deposited a certain sum as security with the Corporation. As the contract was not fulfilled, the Corporation forfeited the security. For…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the security deposits was adjusted towards the arrears of license fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any term of the license etc., was a finding of fact and no question of law arose. In Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21 (MP), the assessee- firm, carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tendu leaves, entered into a contract with Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. for the purchase of tendu leaves and in connection there with, deposited a certain sum as security with the Corporation. As the contract was not fulfilled, the Corporation forfeited the security. For…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the security deposits was adjusted towards the arrears of license fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any term of the license etc., was a finding of fact and no question of law arose. In Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21 (MP), the assessee- firm, carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tendu leaves, entered into a contract with Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. for the purchase of tendu leaves and in connection there with, deposited a certain sum as security with the Corporation. As the contract was not fulfilled, the Corporation forfeited the security. For…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…the security deposits was adjusted towards the arrears of license fee and the same was not a forfeiture by way of penalty for the breach of any term of the license etc., was a finding of fact and no question of law arose. In Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21 (MP), the assessee- firm, carrying on the business of purchase and sale of tendu leaves, entered into a contract with Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. for the purchase of tendu leaves and in connection there with, deposited a certain sum as security with the Corporation. As the contract was not fulfilled, the Corporation forfeited the security. For…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 2825/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 37(1)

…. & Ors reported in 205 ITR 163 (SC) Payment though referred to as penalty, but in fact made in exercise of option available under statutory scheme, in course of assessee's business, is allowable business expenditure. Thackers H.P. & Co. Vs. CIT reported in 134 ITR 21 (MP) The contract for purchase of tendu leaves was in the course of the same business which was then carried on by the assessee and could not be said to be commencement of a new business. The deposit of security amount was made as business expenditure and its forfeiture was a business loss. Security amount deposited under a contract is not for ob…

Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1226/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ed under this section in respect of a loss arising from forfeiture of security deposit as a result of non performance of a trading contract. Various case laws are Narandas v CIT 35ITR 461; CIT v Inden 91 ITR 427; CIT v Sugar dealers 100 ITR 424; Thackers v CIT134 ITR 21. Forfeiture of security deposit-lt covers forfeiture of deposits given as ‘security’ for the business purposes. Forfeiture of security deposited under a contract is Thackers H.P. & Co . Vs CIT 134 ITR 21. Losses arising from payments made in advance to employees or agents would form a proper deduction if the advance payment was made with reasonabl…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Altus Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1276/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ed under this section in respect of a loss arising from forfeiture of security deposit as a result of non performance of a trading contract. Various case laws are Narandas v CIT 35ITR 461; CIT v Inden 91 ITR 427; CIT v Sugar dealers 100 ITR 424; Thackers v CIT134 ITR 21. Forfeiture of security deposit-lt covers forfeiture of deposits given as ‘security’ for the business purposes. Forfeiture of security deposited under a contract is Thackers H.P. & Co . Vs CIT 134 ITR 21. Losses arising from payments made in advance to employees or agents would form a proper deduction if the advance payment was made with reasonabl…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

ITA 2965/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2002-03 Tata Chemicals Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Bombay House, Vs. Income Tax-2(3)(1), 5Th 24 Homi Mody Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai-400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2002-03 Deputy Commissioner Tata Chemicals Ltd. Of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Vs. Bombay House, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 24 Homi Mody Street, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ed to the profit and loss account and amortized towards deposit lying with the lessor on principle of matching concept and hence allowable as business expenditure. It is found that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had relied on the decision in 120 ITR 440, 134 ITR 21 and 135 ITR 200. 8.4 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the above claim of write off of provision for lease deposit is not allowable as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act as the lease deposit is capital in nature. Thus the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the CIT(A). 8.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the re…

M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Dcit 1(1), Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/O M. Mehta & Co, 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaacb7112P Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra,Cas Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Bhagirath Coach & DCIT 1(1), Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/o M. Mehta & Co, 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AAACB7112P Revenue by Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.DR Assessee by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra,CAs Date of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above caption…

Avery India Ltd., Haryana vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kedia, ld.A/RFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…udent to write off the amount. Coal Ltd Reliance in this regard is placed on the Sub-Total ( C ) 2,26,101 following judgements:- M/s. Pyoginam –vs- Add.CIT (2010 130 TTJ 7 (Del) CIT-vs- Sugar Dealers (1975) 100 ITR 424(All) Thackers H.P & Co –vs- CIT (1982) 134 ITR 21(MP) Narandas Mathuradas and Co –vs- CIT (1959) 35 ITR 461 (Bom) Dheerajlal Raghav & Co. ITO (1978) 5 TTJ 557 (Cuttack) Rent Deposit [ deposited but not refundable while vacating the flat The rent deposits were made in Rent Deposit 2,000 respect of flat taken on lease by the Sub-Total[D] 2,000 company for use by its employees. The said flat was va…

Thackers H.P. & Co. v. CIT (134 ITR 21) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax