43 Taxman 231 (Madras), CIT v. VVenkatchalam

14 ITR 10High Court1946#13391 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 5Section 143(3)Section 4Section 6Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 10(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(1)section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)mercantile system of accountingliable to taxnon-residentincome-tax officercross objectiongenuineness of the transactionsalaryunexplained investmentprevious year

Judgments citing 43 Taxman 231 (Madras), CIT v. VVenkatchalam

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

…lant for the first time in Dubai, and the income, if any, had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ubai, and the 5 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi income, if any, had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…lant for the first time in Dubai, and the income, if any, had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

Hemant Gordhanbhai Patel, Nadiad vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

…hai Patel (Individual) vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 10– had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4475/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: ShriAnil Sant – Addl.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…binding precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like M.S.P Nadar Sons v CIT [1993] 68 Taxman 152 (SC), CIT v M.S.P Nadar Sons [1989] 43 Taxman 231 (Madras), CIT v VVenkatchalam [Civil Appeal No.3044 of 1983, dated 13.4.1993] and B.M. Kamdar, In re [1946] 14 ITR 10 (Bombay), it is imperative to emphasize that "Capital Gains" as part of "Total Income" for an A.Y. is to be computed as per provisions of the Domestic Act and the during that process, the question of Treaty benefit does not arise, since Treaty does not lay down any computation mechanism. The option of provisions of Treaty v. Domestic Income Tax Act…

Smt. Pratimaben V. Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

…lant for the first time in Dubai, and the income, if any, had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Raja, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

…lant for the first time in Dubai, and the income, if any, had accrued at Dubai only. Once it is received by the party entitled to it, in respect of any subsequent dealing with the said amount, it cannot be said to be received on that occasion, kindly refer to 14 ITR 10 (Bom.). Subsequently, the term "receipt" had been interpreted to mean that the first occasion when the recipient gets the money on his own control. Once an amount is received as income, any remittance or transmission of the amount to another place does not result in "receipt", within the meaning of this clause at the other place (see, Pondicherry R…

43 Taxman 231 (Madras), CIT v. VVenkatchalam (14 ITR 10) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax