57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.

98 ITR 1High Court1975#10187 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 144(3)section 110section 2(1)section 115wdsection 158bdsection 144basection 70protective assessmentsection 153a(1)(b)section 65bsection 158bcsection 65

Judgments citing 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1348/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1347/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1346/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1345/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1344/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1343/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1342/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

…ry of the possession is "seizure". Seizure is again an expression which implies a forcible exaction or taking possession from either the owner or one who has the possession and who is unwilling to part with possession." Kind reference to Bafna Textiles [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Karnataka) 7 G.M. Agadi (1973) 2 MysLJ, 1973 32 STC 243 Kar. No addition in the hands of a Non-resident under the Act alleging income received overseas 42. The assessee undisputedly is a Non-Resident under the Income-tax Act for the last 20 years and thus, cannot at all be assessed in respect of his alleged overseas income though the said income is…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…be made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) and Bafna Textiles v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Kar). What is the profit or gains which can be said to accrue or arise to the assessee when lie makes over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital ? The consideration, as we have observed, is the right of a partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of profits from time to time and afte…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…be made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) and Bafna Textiles v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Kar). What is the profit or gains which can be said to accrue or arise to the assessee when lie makes over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital ? The consideration, as we have observed, is the right of a partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of profits from time to time and afte…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…be made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) and Bafna Textiles v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Kar). What is the profit or gains which can be said to accrue or arise to the assessee when lie makes over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital ? The consideration, as we have observed, is the right of a partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of profits from time to time and afte…

ITO, WD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WHITE CLIFF PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

…e made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Bai Shirinbai Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) and Batna Textiles vs. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 1 (Ker).” 22. In this case, it cannot be said that the right to receive accrued, before the start of construction and before the happening of certain contingencies and fulfilment of conditions stipulated in the agreement. Hence, the consideration in question neither was received nor accrued in the impugned assessment year. In this case, the asset itse…