Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT

78 ITR 55Supreme Court of India1970#7506 most cited

What is Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A provision written back and not considered taxable income for the year is not added to computed loss.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT · 78 ITR 55 · provision written back · taxable income · loss computed · book profit · waiver of loan

Judgments citing Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT

Share Microfin Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyerabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 430/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) Pan:Aaecs9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23003.2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-3, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 5 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. The Reasons Given Therein Is Due To The Prevailing Covid 2019 Pandemic. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons Filed Along With The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR
Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

…ITA 430 of 2020 Share Microfin Ltd आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Share Microfin Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 3(1) PAN:AAECS9243C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.G. Sitaraman, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR Date of hearing: 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement: 12/06/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23003.2020 of the lear…

Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4662/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Kamla Developers V. Acit– 25(2) B-5, Parekh Apartment Room No. 508, C-10 Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W) Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400056 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaffk9156Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore : Shri Brajendra Kumar Department By Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

…eration there is no question of making addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act deeming it as income of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: - a. CCIT v. Kesaria Tea company [20 SITC 172] b. Tirunelveli Motor Buus Service Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT [78 ITR 55] c. Steel & General Mills Co. Ltd., v. CIT [96 ITR 438] 13. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 8 M/s. Kamla Developers 14. Heard rival submissions, perused orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On a perusal of the Assessment Order, I find that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the adva…

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

…xable income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions - Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55 (SC) CIT v. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR 572 (Guj) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not includa…

Dharamtar Motors Services Petroleum Product, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1438/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ra 7, it is held that in absence of any evidence regarding allowance or deduction in past year, no addition can be made referring to judgment of 325 ITR 593 (P & H) Sitadevi Juneja, 325 ITR52 (P & H) G P International, 254 ITR 434 (SC) Kesariya Tea as well as 78 ITR 55 (SC) Terunelveli Motor Bus as well as Gujarat High Court in Bharat Iron 199 ITR 67. Attention is drawn to 14 ITR 355 (Madras) in N.Rudrappa wherein it is held that where the retiring partner share in loss of the firm is forgive by the firm then Section 41(1) is not applicable. Therefore, based on the aforesaid submission, we hereby submit as under:…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 556/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…le income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written- back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated ITA No. 6963/Del/2014 & 553/Del/2015 15 above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount…

M/S. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6963/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…le income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written- back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated ITA No. 6963/Del/2014 & 553/Del/2015 15 above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount…

Nayan T. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1005/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Nayan T Shah, Dcit, Flat No.501, 5Th Floor, Circle-23(3), बनाम/ Rajyog Residency, (Now Dcit Circle-29(2), Vs. Near Vardhman Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Dr. R.P. Road, Bandra (East), Mulund (West), Mumbai Mumbai-400080 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aahps3290B

Section 144Section 41(1)Section 44A

…T Shah Our view further find supports from the decision from Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs Bhawan & Path Nirman (Bohra) & Company (No.2) (2002) 258 ITR 440 (Raj.), wherein, the decision in the case of Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Company P. Ltd. 78 ITR 55(Supreme Court), Naubartram Nandram vs CIT 86 ITR 805 (MP) and Bhagwat Prasad & Company (99 ITR 111) (All.) were also considered. The decision in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Jaikishan Arjun Singh ((supra)) from the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal further supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, the a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4906/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Aditya Kr., FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

…ble income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not inclu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 475/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Aditya Kr., FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

…ble income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not inclu…

M/S Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4426/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Aditya Kr., FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

…ble income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not inclu…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 92/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Aditya Kr., FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

…ble income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not inclu…

Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5124/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Aditya Kr., FCA &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80

…ble income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions:- • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501 (Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)" Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not inclu…

Shanti Lal Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 73/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

…s it is proved that an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment in any previous year, it is not open to the Revenue to invoke section 41(1). Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 55 (SC). Further, in steel and General Mills Co. Ltd vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 438 (Delhi) it has been held that burden lies upon the department to prove that an allowance or deduction had been given for this amount to the assessee in the earlier Assessment Years. ITA 73/JP/2016_ 10 Shanti Lal Bahndari Vs ITO e) Your honour the Ld. AO mention the case l…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…le income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions - • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501(Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)” Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not ITA No.…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…le income in this year Accordingly, the loss computed has been increased to the extent of the provision written-back. In connection with the above contentions, the Company relies on the following decisions - • Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT 78 ITR 55(SC) • CIT V. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. 188 CTR572(Guj • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v CIT 261 ITR 501(Bom) • CIT v. Usha Ranjan Bhadra 126 ITR 44 (Gauhati)” Then again in note no.10.1 (the relevant portion of which has already been incorporated above) the assessee specifically gave a caveat that this amount on account of waiver of loan is not ITA No.…

Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Co. P Ltd. v. CIT (78 ITR 55) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax