0304. 2. ITO v. India Advantage Fund-I (2015) 43 CCH 0459 BangTrib. 3. Jyotendrasinghji v. S.I.Tripathi & Ors.

201 ITR 611Supreme Court of India1993#10345 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing 0304. 2. ITO v. India Advantage Fund-I (2015) 43 CCH 0459 BangTrib. 3. Jyotendrasinghji v. S.I.Tripathi & Ors.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…pronouncements: - (a) CIT v. Jitendra Nath Mallick[1963] 50 ITR 313 (Cal.) (b) Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty v. CIT[1984] 150 ITR 60/16 Taxman 307 (Kar.) (c) K. Subramania Pillai v. Agricultural ITO[1964] 53 ITR 764 (Mad.) (d) Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi[1993] 201 ITR 611/68 Taxman 59 (SC) 7.3.4 It was submitted that the principles laid out in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements (supra) have been applied by a Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Dy. CIT v. India Advantage Fund VII[2014] 50 taxmann.com 350/[2015] 67 SOT 5 (URO), wherein on similar issues, the Tribunal has held that the Trust was a revocable…

M/S RADIC KHAITAN LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2005-06]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 245Section 245D(4)

…ng as the application complies with the requirements of Section 245C. (refer page 451 - plac. E/F). (Emphasis supplied)." The judgments in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission, (1989) 176 ITR169 Jyotendrasinghji v. S.I. Tripathi & Ors., (1993) 201 ITR 611 Shriyans Prasad Jain v. Income- tax Officer and others, (1993) 204 ITR 616 and Kuldeep Industrial corporation v. ITO, (1997) 223 ITR 840 are equally conclusive about the plenitude of powers conferred upon the Settlement Commission. 16. It is evident from the rulings of the Supreme Court that orders of Settlement Commission are final and conclusiv…

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, RJY, E.G.DIST vs. M/S KADAKATLA RICE MILL, TADEPALLIGUDEM, W.G.DIST

ITTA/289/2017HC Telangana06 Dec 2017

Bench: The Income Tax Settlement Commission/Respondent No. 1 On 8Th April, 2015 For Settlement Of Its Income Tax Matters By Disclosing An Income Of Rs. 3,93,93,544/-. The Aforesaid Application Of The Respondent No. 2 Was Proceeded With Under Section 245 D (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By An Order Dated 21St April, 2015. After Receipt Of The Report Under Section 245 D (2B) Of The Act, From The

Section 245

…ned counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this court would not go into questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC) this court can interfere with the Commission’s order only if it is found to be ‘contrary to any of the provisions of the Act’. To the same effect is the earlier decision of this court in R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) [1989] 176 ITR 169 (SC).” Judgment relied upon by the ass…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s powers on the Assessing Officer to assess either the representative assessee or the person represented by him (the principal) in respect 01\ the income mentioned in section 160. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyotendarsinghji vs.S.I.Tripathi 201 ITR 611 (SC) has also ruled that the revenue has an option in case 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 5 9 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 6 a n d o t h e r t w o a p p e a l s of a discretionary Trust either to make an assessment upon Trustees or to make an assessment upon beneficiaries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalini Khatau (supra) has held that in an event, b…

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s powers on the Assessing Officer to assess either the representative assessee or the person represented by him (the principal) in respect 01\ the income mentioned in section 160. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyotendarsinghji vs.S.I.Tripathi 201 ITR 611 (SC) has also ruled that the revenue has an option in case 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 5 9 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 6 a n d o t h e r t w o a p p e a l s of a discretionary Trust either to make an assessment upon Trustees or to make an assessment upon beneficiaries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalini Khatau (supra) has held that in an event, b…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…s powers on the Assessing Officer to assess either the representative assessee or the person represented by him (the principal) in respect 01\ the income mentioned in section 160. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyotendarsinghji vs.S.I.Tripathi 201 ITR 611 (SC) has also ruled that the revenue has an option in case 7 I . T . A . N o . 4 5 9 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 6 a n d o t h e r t w o a p p e a l s of a discretionary Trust either to make an assessment upon Trustees or to make an assessment upon beneficiaries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalini Khatau (supra) has held that in an event, b…

M/S. TAMIL NADU URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2317/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 61

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2316 & 2317/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Urban Development The ITO, Business Ward- Fund, II(4), Chennai, New No.19 T P Scheme Road, Jurisdiction, ITO – Non- Raja Street Extension, Corporate Ward-2(5), Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-34. Chennai-600 028. [PAN: AAATT 0859 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appel…

M/S. TAMIL NADU URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2316/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 61

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2316 & 2317/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Urban Development The ITO, Business Ward- Fund, II(4), Chennai, New No.19 T P Scheme Road, Jurisdiction, ITO – Non- Raja Street Extension, Corporate Ward-2(5), Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-34. Chennai-600 028. [PAN: AAATT 0859 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appel…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…he following judicial pronouncements: - (a) CIT vs. Jitendra Nath Mallick 50 ITR 313 (Cal.) (b) Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty vs. CIT 150 ITR 60 (Kar.) (c) K. Subramania Pillai vs. Agricultural ITO 53 ITR 764 (Mad.) (d) Jyotendrasinhji vs. S. I. Tripathi and Others 201 ITR 611 (SC) 7.3.4 It was submitted that the principles laid out in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements (supra) have been applied by a Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of DCIT vs. India Advantage Fund VII (ITA No. 178/Bang/2012)/ (46 ITR(T) 304) (Bangalore Tribunal), wherein on similar issues, the Tribunal has held that the Trust was a revocable…

MRS. SHARON NAYAK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1594/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 161Section 17(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(i)Section 56(2)(vi)

…ds of a representative assessee in his own name, the assessment would be deemed to be made upon him in the representative capacity only and tax could be levied and recovered in the manner provided in section 161(1). In Jyotendrasinhji v. S. I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC), a Bench of two learned judges of this court founded their judgment principally upon C. R. Nagappa's case [1969] 73 ITR 626 (SC) and concluded that by virtue of section 166 the Revenue had an option in the case of the income of a discretionary trust either to make an assessment upon the trustees or to make an assessment upon the beneficiarie…

0304. 2. ITO v. India Advantage Fund-I (2015) 43 CCH 0459 BangTrib. 3. Jyotendrasinghji v. S.I.Tripathi & Ors. (201 ITR 611) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax