Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Chit Bid Loss Allowed as Business Loss: Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6 (1) (1), Bengaluru Versus M/s. Shriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6 (1) (1), Bengaluru Versus M/s. Shriram Chits (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s order.2. Deletion of disallowance of Bid Loss claimed in the computation of total income.3. Applicability of Section 145(1) of the I.T. Act, Board's Notification No.SO 69(E), and Accounting Standard AS 22.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the CIT(A)'s Order:The Revenue contended that the order of the CIT(A) was opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal examined the orders of the lower authorities and the judgments referred to by the parties. It was found that the identical issue was previously raised and adjudicated by the Tribunal in favor of the assessee, following various judicial pronouncements of different High Courts and the Apex Court.2. Deletion of Disallowance of Bid Loss:The primary issue was whether the Bid Loss incurred on account of lifting the chit in the capacity of a subscriber to the chit is allowable in full in the year in which the chit was auctioned. The Tribunal noted that the loss represents the difference between the face value of the chit and the bid value, which was claimed as a loss in the computation of total income. The AO opined that this loss should be apportioned over the period of the chit. However, the Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Madras High Court in M/s Bilahari Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which allowed the loss as a business loss in the year it occurred. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. JCIT, which held that revenue expenditure incurred in a particular year should be allowed in that year unless the assessee opts for a spread over, which was not the case here.3. Applicability of Section 145(1) of the I.T. Act, Board's Notification No.SO 69(E), and Accounting Standard AS 22:The Tribunal discussed the applicability of Section 145(1) of the I.T. Act and noted that income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' or 'Income from other sources' shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting, and therefore, the income or loss of the assessee accruing during the relevant accounting year had to be considered for the purpose of income-tax assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of the Chit Funds Act require the prized subscriber to furnish security for future installments, and thus, the discount is allowable in the year of accrual.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Bid Loss incurred on account of lifting the chit in the capacity of a subscriber to the chit is allowable in full in the year in which the chit was auctioned. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the order of the CIT(A) as it was in consonance with the judgments of the High Court and Apex Court.Final Judgment:The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 28th November 2017.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found