53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 471High Court1999#13813 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 28(ii)(b)Section 28(va)Section 4Section 73

Judgments citing 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3052/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3052/Del/2007 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Modi Entertainment Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 49, Community Centre, New Friends Ward-5(2), Colony, New Delhi- New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm8283G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi Dated 24.03.2007 In Case No. 143/06-07, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 73

…and the CIT(A), as the case may be, have proved the assessee to be a managing agency qua “whole or substantially whole…….” in the foregoing terms. This is indeed coupled with the fact that case law (1978) 115 ITR 190(AP) J.R. Kimtee & Sons Vs. CIT and (1999) 239 ITR 471 (Mad.) CIT Vs. Seshasayee Bros. (P) Ltd have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that foregoing statutory provision covers the specified managing agency(ies) under clauses (a) to (c) than having any general applicability in all situations. 10. Learned CIT-DR at this stage also sought to buttress the point that the a…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…(Cal) 347 : (1994) 209 ITR 732 (Cal) : TC13PS.62. 20. In CIT vs. T.I. & M. Sales Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 116 (Mad) in which principle laid down in P.H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC) and CIT vs. Seshasavee Bros. (P) Ltd. (1999) 151 CTR (Mad) 598 : (1999) 239 ITR 471 (Mad) was applied, it was held that distributorship agreement on principal to principal basis was not an agency agreement and did not fall within the ambit of s. 28(ii)(c) of the Act and that merely because compensation was quantified on different counts, it could not be said that assessee had been reimbursed the expenses incurred in the past or…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Ashwini Manmohan Kakkar, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5315/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Mr. Ashwini Manmohan Income-Tax 1(3), Kakkar, Centre-1, 28Th Floor, 11-B, Jolly Maker World Trade Centre, Vs. Apartment, Cuffe Parade, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aacpk9698Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. Garasia: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Short Facts Of The Case Are As Under: During The Previous Year Relating To A.Y. 2007-08 Assessee Had Received An Amount Of 10,74,260/- Euro From Thomas Cook, Uk.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 2(24)Section 28Section 8O

…or rendering consultancy services and agreement was between principal and principal. Therefore, it is not taxable under section 28(i) or section 28(ii). He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Seshasayeé Bros. Pvt. Ltd. 239 ITR 471 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v CIT 236 ITR 903 (SC). 7 Mr. Ashwini Manmohan Kakkar 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has received the compensation from Thomas Cook,UK and Thomas Cook AG German…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…i. J P Shrivastava and Sons (Bhopal) Private Ltd vs. CIT: 57 ITR 624 (SC) ii. ThiagarajaChettiar& Co. vs. CIT, Madras: 51 ITR 393 (Mad.) iii. CIT vs. South Madras Industrial Development Co. (P) Ltd. : 120 ITR 913 (Mad.) iv. CIT vs. Seshasayee Bros. (P.) Ltd.: 239 ITR 471 (Mad.) v. CIT v. R. Lakshmi Narayanan: 202 CTR 125 (Mad.) vi. Sanjib Kumar Agarwal v. CIT: 310 ITR 295 (Cal.) vii. ACIT v. GETIT Infomediary Ltd.: 42 taxmann.com 391 (Del.) viii. DCIT v. SP Real Estate Developers P. Ltd: 47 taxmann.com 281 (Hyd.) 27) He further submitted that Information regarding timely delivery of vehicles dispatched from premi…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT…

53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 471) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax