7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR

56 ITR 67Supreme Court of India1965#811 most cited

What is 7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR authority for?

A taxpayer can raise a plea that their income is not taxable, even if they have previously made an agreement regarding the quantification of taxable income. The principle of estoppel does not apply against a settled position in law.

127

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mr. P. Firm · Muar · 56 ITR 67 · SC · settled position of law · estoppel · taxable income · consent does not confer jurisdiction · voluntary disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153CSection 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234BSection 36(1)(iii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)annual letting valuecaptive service providerjoint development agreementjdapercentage completion methodannual valueworking capital adjustmentsection 92bsection 2(47)right to receivearms length price

Judgments citing 7. CIT v. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 606/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…issed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge against the profits of the income. From the very nature of Membership fee collected from mem…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 605/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…issed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge against the profits of the income. From the very nature of Membership fee collected from mem…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 604/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…issed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge against the profits of the income. From the very nature of Membership fee collected from mem…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op .Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2611/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…issed.” It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.” 10. Thus, reading of the above judgement, we find that a subscription or admission fee normally constitutes a capital receipt and not liable to tax and also transfer of income to reserve fund in compliance with the statutory provisions constitute a charge against the profits of the income. From the very nature of Membership fee collected from mem…

Cisco Video Technologies (India) Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 597/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…s earned in Karachi. What has, therefore, to be determined is whether, notwithstanding the apportionment made by the respondent in the profit and loss statements, the deduction is admissible under the law." 34. In the case of CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 , the following observations of Their Lordships of Supreme Court are as under : "The decision in Amarendra Narayan Roy v. CIT AIR 1954 Cal. 271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon it. The agreemen…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Cisco Video Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed

ITA 476/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.476/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…s earned in Karachi. What has, therefore, to be determined is whether, notwithstanding the apportionment made by the respondent in the profit and loss statements, the deduction is admissible under the law." 34. In the case of CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 , the following observations of Their Lordships of Supreme Court are as under : "The decision in Amarendra Narayan Roy v. CIT AIR 1954 Cal. 271 has no bearing on the question raised before us. There the concessional scheme tempted the assessee to disclose voluntarily all his concealed income and he agreed to pay the proper tax upon it. The agreemen…

Jiten Bhavanji Vora, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6670/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 271A

…acquisition.” 13. I note that it is not the case of the revenue that any of the above decisions have been reversed by Hon'ble High Courts. It may not be out of place to mention here the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mr. P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 for the proposition that if a particular income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Shelly Products (129 taxamn 271), supports the proposition that if the assessee has erroneously paid more tax than he was legally required to d…

ITO 2 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Centrum Capital Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection

ITA 497/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito – 2(1)(3) Centrum Capital Limited Room Ni. 553, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual Building, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya
Section 14Section 14A

…n admitting an additional claim 5 ITA No. 497/Mum/2019 & CO No. 12/Mum/2020 Centrum Capital Limited which was raised for the first time without a revised return. Furthermore, we also note here the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67(SC) for the proposition that if a particular income is not taxable under the Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Shelly Products 129 taxman 271 (SC), supports the proposition that if the assessee has erroneously paid more tax than he was legally req…

Mavenir India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Comverse Network System India Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgoan

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

ITA 203/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 12Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156

…obate and reprobate. 14 27. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 27.12.2018 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Mr. T.P. Firm MUAR in 56 ITR 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio “Approbate and Reprobate” is only species of estoppel. It applies only to conduct of parties as in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. If particular income is taxable under the I.T. Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equal d…

Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8892/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Ys 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153BSection 156Section 274

…probate and reprobate. 27. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 27.12.2018 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Mr. T.P. Firm MUAR in 56 ITR 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio “Approbate and Reprobate” is only species of estoppel. It applies only to conduct of parties as in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. IF particular income is taxable under the I.T. Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equal d…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 9116/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153B

…obate and reprobate. 27. The question whether participation in subsequent proceedings would estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the order dated 27.12.2018 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V Mr. T.P. Firm MUAR in 56 ITR 67 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio “Approbate and Reprobate” is only species of estoppel. It applies only to conduct of parties as in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. IF particular income is taxable under the I.T. Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equal…

Rajesh Poddar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(4), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of assessee

ITA 2110/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…the conduct of the parties. He submitted that as in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. In this regard he referred to decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC). He submitted that equity is out of place in tax law. In this regard he referred to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 72 taxmaim.com 289 (Guj.) He propounded the proposition that it cannot be read as having held that even if the material found during the course of search expose…

Cargill Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1438/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N Charyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Ita No.1438/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Ita No.5444/Del./2010 Assessment Year: 2007-8

Section 143(3)Section 250

…une 2005 onward the assessee has charged markup at the rate of 6 percentile on the cost and has offered to tax as income as FTS, the learnedCounsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs MRP Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC), wherein it is held that the doctrine of ‘approbate and reprobate’ is only a species of estoppel and applies only to the 5444/Del./2010 conduct of the parties. As in the case of the estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of the statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis…

Cargill Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed partly for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1437/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N Charyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Ita No.1438/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Ita No.5444/Del./2010 Assessment Year: 2007-8

Section 143(3)Section 250

…une 2005 onward the assessee has charged markup at the rate of 6 percentile on the cost and has offered to tax as income as FTS, the learnedCounsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs MRP Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC), wherein it is held that the doctrine of ‘approbate and reprobate’ is only a species of estoppel and applies only to the 5444/Del./2010 conduct of the parties. As in the case of the estoppel, it cannot operate against the provision of the statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis…

Dr. K.R. Rajashekar Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 21/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.21(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dr.K.R.Rajashekar Reddy, No.1, 6Th Floor, Okayard Apartments, 38Th Cross, East End Road, 9Th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 069 Panno.Abgpr1285F Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S. Tamil Selvam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Tamil Selvam, JCIT
Section 54F

…dividual returns it is open to him to show that the said amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the individual. The Assessee in support of his claim that admissions are not conclusive relied on several decisions in particular the decisions in CIT Vs. ARL Firm 56 ITR 67 (SC) and Pullongode Rubber Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (SC). 12. The CIT(A) however did not agree with the submissions so made before him and he held that the capital gain has to be brought to tax only in the hands of the individual. The following were the relevant observations of the CIT(A): “4.2 The facts of the case as well as the appellant’…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…ay be an important piece of evidence, but the same is not conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. We may also refer to the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. V. MR.P Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67, wherein it was held that the principle of estoppels will not against the Income tax Act. The relevant observations are extracted below: "The contention is that the assessees having opted to accept the scheme, derived benefit there-under, and agreed to have their discharged debts excluded from the assets side in the balance-sheet subject to the con…

The Peerless Gen.Fin and Investment Company Limited vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001265-001265 - 2007Supreme Court09 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67. 11) Shri Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, however, strongly relied upon the observations in Ram Janki Devi and another v. M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477. In particular, he relied upon paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as follows:- “The case of a deposit is something m…

Income Tax Officer 11(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vikunj Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1789/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Vikunj Enterprises Private 11(3)(3), Room No.429, Vs. Limited, B-1, Neela Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, S.V.Road, Borivali(West), M.K. Marg, Mumbai- Mumbai-400092. 400020. Pan No. Aabcv6166C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Rahul R. Sarda, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’] & Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ground Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Reads As Under: “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Assessee Of Rs.1,28,42,775/- By Considering The Income As Per Revised Return Of Income (Revised Return Filed On 17.02.2015) Which Was Not The Valid Return Of Income As Per Section 139(5) Which States That – If Any Person, Having Furnished A Return Under Sub Section (1), Or In Pursuance Of A Notice Issued Under Sub Section (1) Of Section 142, Discovers Any Omission Or Any Wrong Statement Therein, He May Furnish A Revised Return At Any Time Before The Expiry Of One Year From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Of Before

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul R. Sarda, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the correctness of the said revised computation statement has not been questioned by the AO. Further, relying on the decision in the case of Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon v/s. DCIT [2013] 155 TTJ 1 (Chandigarh), CIT v/s. Mr. P. Firm (56 ITR 67) (SC), CIT v/s. Keiser E-Hind Mills Co. Ltd. 128 ITR 486 (Guj.), the Ld. CIT(A) observed that substantial justice should be done ignoring pedantic and technical reasons, and only correct income should be taxed. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to accept the computation of income filed in support of income filed on 17.02.2015. 5. Before u…

Purnendu Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2241/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(5)Section 192Section 194JSection 24Section 80C

…t income for the right year from the hands of the right person. And it has to be kept in mind that ignorance of an assessee should not be taken advantage by the department. A reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and Circular No. 114XL 35 of 1955 issued by the CBDT on 11.04.1955 that AO must not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as to his rights. It has to be kept in mind that what is required to be determined is the taxable income of the assessee in accordance with law. It is taken note that the case law relied by Revenue in the case of…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

….) Consistency Principle Without prejudice to the above, if a clearly incorrect view was taken in earlier years, it can't be argued in the subsequent year that the same incorrect approach should be repeated, as held in the case of CIT Vs V.MR.P. Firm (1965) 56 ITR 67 (SC) and also in CWT vs Meattles (P) Ltd (1984) 156 ITR 569 (Del). 38. The ld. DR concluded by stating as under: “Apparent is not real : - • As per clause 11.4 of JV Agreement, CEO of the company "Aviva" will always be from CUIH and never from Dabur. • Assessee was asked to explain why they have up their right for ever and why day-to-day control…