Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT

131 ITR 659High Court1981#5495 most cited

What is Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income from 'other sources' is deductible if there is a nexus between the expenditure and the income earned. The expenditure must be linked to the income earned, not just the activity that generates the income.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT · section 57 · section 37(1) · income from other sources · deduction of expenditure · commercial expediency · nexus between expenditure and income · earning of income

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, PAN: AAACM 9840P Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member 2. This appeal is against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Bangalo…

PADAMSHI MADAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3999/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2nd floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAKPS5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2nd floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhav…

VIPUL PADAMSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3998/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aakps5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner Of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Alqps5159R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vishwas V. Mehendale, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vipul Padamshi Shah Deputy Commissioner of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2nd floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAKPS5721L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Padamshi Madan Shah Deputy Commissioner of B-42, Swapnashilp, Income Tax, 8(2), Mumbai Vs. Mahant Road, Vile Parle- 209, 2nd floor, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400057 Bhav…

VAAYA RENEWABLE ENERGY (PURNA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)`, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy DCIT, (PURNA) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19th Floor, AIR India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (west), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADCV7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shr…

ASHOK AMRITRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1244/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1244/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Ashok Amritraj, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 10, Chesney Lane, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 008. [Pan: Aabpa2975R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57

…from other sources”. It is not necessary 7 I.T.A. No.1244/M/17 that income should have been earned as a result of expenditure claimed as deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act. 5.4 The Gujarat High Court in the case of Virmati Ramkrishna vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 659, has observed the following propositions in respect of deduction of an expenditure under section 57(iii) of the Act after analysing the statutory language and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) and Seth R. Dalmia vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 644 (SC) : (i) in order to d…

Showing 120 of 21 · Page 1 of 2