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>Tribunal allows chit-loss deduction as business expenditure for 1990-91</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus KS. Shetty & Co.</h3> Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus KS. Shetty & Co. - ITD 87, 259, TTJ 81, 158, ITR - SUPP 263, 71, Issues:1. Treatment of chit-loss as admissible deduction for assessment year 1990-91.Analysis:The appeal filed by the Revenue contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the treatment of chit-loss as a deductible business expenditure for the assessment year 1990-91. The Revenue raised the issue based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a specific case. The assessee, a registered firm, claimed the chit-loss as business expenditure in its return, leading to a dispute with the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) subsequently deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, citing decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. The Revenue challenged this decision, emphasizing the nature of chit-business as a mutual accommodation without a direct link to the members' business activities, thus arguing against the allowance of the chit-loss as a business expense under the Income-tax Act.The Departmental Representative contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in disregarding the recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which was relied upon by the Assessing Officer. This representative supported the Assessing Officer's stance, highlighting the mutual accommodation aspect of chit-business. In contrast, the assessee's representative argued that the funds received from the chit-fund were utilized for the firm's business operations, referencing instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). These instructions clarified the treatment of surplus amounts received by chit contributors as business income and losses incurred as allowable business expenditures. The assessee's representative emphasized the binding nature of CBDT circulars and instructions, urging the Revenue to adhere to them.Upon evaluating the arguments presented by both parties and examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the chit-loss incurred by the assessee should be considered a business loss. The Tribunal referenced the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the decisions of various High Courts, including the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The Tribunal highlighted the principle of mutuality in chit funds and the applicability of business income or expenditure based on the nature of transactions within the fund. Considering the circulars issued by the CBDT and the consistent stance maintained even after the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deeming it devoid of merit.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the treatment of chit-loss as a business expenditure, emphasizing the legal principles, precedents, and CBDT instructions governing such transactions. The decision underscored the business nature of chit transactions and the relevance of established legal interpretations in determining the tax treatment of chit-related losses.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found