Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. T. A. Quereshi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal on 6 December, 2006

Hemant Surana, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 March, 2011

5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decisions. Indisputably, the assessee, a chartered accountant, incurred loss of ``3,11,85,809/- in the business of trading in shares. The AO disallowed the claim of set off of loss, having recourse to the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act while ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim on the ground that the said explanation was attracted only in the case of any expenditure and not in the event of loss. The issue before us is as to whether or not explanation below section 37(1) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962, is applicable in this case.. This Explanation lays down that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or 6 ITA no.3245/Del./2011 & CO no. 237/Del./2011 which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction or allowance shall be made. It is well settled that this explanation is applicable only to an expenditure and not to a loss [Dr. T. A. Quereshi (supra) & TN Vohra(supra).]. There is a distinction between the expenditure and loss.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur vs Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr Lrs on 24 April, 2023

4.4 It is submitted that however as the respondent – assessee was engaged in the business of trading of silver and the said silver slabs were in possession of the assessee for the purpose of trading, absolute confiscation of the said silver slabs would result in loss of stock in trade and the value thereof would be available as deduction as business/trading loss. It is submitted that therefore the decision of this Court in the case of T.A. Quereshi (Supra) shall be clearly applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

C. Chandrashekar, Mandya vs Assessee

In the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi v. CIT reported in (2006) 287 ITR 547, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that "that the Explanation to section 37 had no relevance as this was not a case of business expenditure but was one of business loss. Business loss was allowable on ordinary commercial principles in computing the profits".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Ddit (I.T)2(1), vs M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, on 8 March, 2023

However, the Supreme Court held in another case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 547 held that illegal losses are allowable losses. In that case, where the assessee reflected the banned substances in the stock-in-trade, when such stock is seized, the loss on account of such stock is held as an allowable business 8 Standard Chartered Bank loss despite the infraction of law. Relevant paras 14 and 16 from the said judgment is as under.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idl Industries Limited , Hyderabad vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 18 July, 2018

Therefore, though it cannot be treated as bad debt as initially claimed by the assessee, we are inclined to accept the alternate contention that it is a business loss and should be allowed in the ordinary commercial principles, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi (supra) . Accordingly, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 4 are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next