Which cases are most cited on Section 10(2)(xi)?

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (111 ITR 263) — 48 citing judgments; A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (48 ITR 67) — 27 citing judgments; Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT (96 ITR 568) — 16 citing judgments; CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. (259 ITR 114) — 15 citing judgments; ACIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (33 Taxmann.com 575) — 10 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 10(2)(xi)?

BharatTax indexes 11 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 10(2)(xi) (Section 10(2)(xi)).

← All Phrases

“Section 10(2)(xi)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 10(2)(xi)?

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (111 ITR 263) is the decision most relied on for Section 10(2)(xi), cited in 48 judgments on BharatTax. A business loss is deductible if it has a direct and proximate nexus with business operations or is incidental to them, applying a commercial standard, even without an explicit statutory provision for its deduction.

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(2)(xi)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(2)(xi) is Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (111 ITR 263), cited in 48 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xi)

Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT

111 ITR 263 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A business loss is deductible if it has a direct and proximate nexus with business operations or is incidental to them, applying a commercial standard, even without an explicit statutory provision for its deduction.

A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT

48 ITR 67 · 1963 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For a bad debt to be allowable as a deduction, it must be a debt that, if good, would have increased the taxable profits. An expenditure for running a school for employees' children in a remote area can be considered an allowable expenditure for the welfare of employees.

Chenab Forest Co. v. CIT

96 ITR 568 · 1974 · High Court

citing judgments

Advances made by a forest lessee to sub-contractors for forest operations, which become irrecoverable due to non-renewal of the lease, are deductible as a business loss under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. These advances are considered part of ordinary business expenditure necessary to carry on the business.

CIT v. Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd.

259 ITR 114 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

Advances given for the acquisition of capital assets, which are subsequently written off, are allowable as a business loss. This also applies to deposits given for lease premises that become irrecoverable.

ACIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd.

33 Taxmann.com 575 · 2013 · Reported

citing judgments

Advances given in the course of business for the purchase of revenue items can be written off as a bad debt under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Judgments citing Section 10(2)(xi)

Acc India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 4907/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee, Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 10(1)(xv) as well as the provisions of Section 10(2)(xi). Hon’ble Bombay High Court answered this question while stating that in the given facts that the embezzlement committed by the employee

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

DCIT (It)-2(1)(2), Air Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4722/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3691/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

section (2) of section 36. The condition incorporated in section 36 of the Income-tax Act, which was not there in section 10(2)(xi) of the 1922 Act, is that the amount of debt should have been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee

Dbs Bank Ltd (Dbs Bank Ltd., India Branches Now Converted Into Dbs Bank India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Txt)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3691/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Permpurna, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Roop Kishore Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9540/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Subhash Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 36(2)

dues. The assessee, accordingly, waived its rights in respect of Rs. 2,87,422/- and claimed the said amount as a deduction under section 10(2)(xi) and 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I. T. Act 1922. The question was 6 Roop Kishore Madan whether the said amount which

Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1418/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

really mean any bad debt which, when it was a good debt, would not have come in to swell the profits". In the section 10(2)(xi) of 1922 Act, a debt means something, more than a mere advance, It means something which is related to business or results from

Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1417/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate

Section 153ASection 28Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL