Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1996 (5) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Tribunal upholds loss disallowance for Venus Jewellers, rejects single entity argument The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers, as no business activity was conducted from the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                            Tribunal upholds loss disallowance for Venus Jewellers, rejects single entity argument

                            The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers, as no business activity was conducted from the premises during the relevant assessment years. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the argument to treat the businesses of M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a single entity, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court precedent. The disallowance of the loss was upheld, emphasizing the separate nature of the two businesses.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee for the proprietary business of M/s. Venus Jewellers.
                            2. Treatment of the proprietary businesses of M/s. Venus Bros. and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a single business entity.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Disallowance of Loss Claimed by the Assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers:

                            The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 38,556 for the assessment year 1985-86, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO noted that the assessee did not carry on any trading activity during the said year, and the loss was due to expenses debited in the profit and loss account. The AO observed that the business license of M/s. Venus Jewellers was transferred to M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers, another proprietary concern of the assessee, and that the stock of M/s. Venus Jewellers was seized by the department, preventing any trading activity. The AO concluded that M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers were separate entities with separate books of account, and thus, disallowed the loss.

                            On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the stock seized in November 1980 was released in December 1984, and there were no purchases or sales during the period ending on 30-4-1984. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not conduct any business from the premises of M/s. Venus Jewellers at South Extension, and merely maintaining the premises did not constitute carrying on business.

                            The assessee argued that the loss should be allowed as it was incurred due to rent, depreciation, and bank commission. The assessee also contended that the business was carried on from M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers, and both concerns should be treated as a single business due to common management and control.

                            The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the orders of the tax authorities, concluded that no business activity was carried on from the premises of M/s. Venus Jewellers during the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had separate books of account for the two concerns and treated them as separate entities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee.

                            2. Treatment of M/s. Venus Bros. and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a Single Business:

                            The assessee argued that the businesses of M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers should be treated as a single business due to common management and control. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT, where it was held that in view of common management and control, the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss in one business and set it off against the profits of another business.

                            The Tribunal, however, distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the assessee was carrying on business from two separate concerns located at different places with separate accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision could not be applied to the present case, and the two concerns should be treated as separate entities.

                            The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee from M/s. Venus Jewellers and did not accept the argument that the two businesses should be treated as one.

                            Conclusion:

                            The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the loss claimed by the assessee for M/s. Venus Jewellers, holding that no business activity was carried on from the premises during the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the businesses of M/s. Venus Jewellers and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers should be treated as a single business due to common management and control, distinguishing the facts from the Supreme Court decision in B. R. Ltd. v. V. P. Gupta, CIT.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found