(a) In Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

23 ITR 152Supreme Court of India1953#13827 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(6)(viii)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 192 Section 194J Section 195 Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 10 previous year section 143 prescribed company section 14 india business interest total income section 143(3)nfac

Judgments citing (a) In Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…and properly belonged to the assessee and were liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding any subsequent disposition of those profits by the assessee. In support of his contention counsel relied upon Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [23 ITR 152] — a case decided by this Court. In that case an Indian Company received commission on sales effected in India of goods received from a foreign company. The Indian Company handled the cargo arriving at Calcutta and made disbursements in connection therewith, collected and after deducting expenses including their commission remitted the balance…

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…regarded as it’s income by Revenue. How, one wonders, being axiomatic, could that be disputed, signify as it does the right to receive, case law on which is legion, viz. Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 230 (SC) Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 152 (SC) E.D.Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) The amount having been already received, income arises to that extent; the assessee acquiring a dominion or unqualified right over the…

SHRI SURESH GEORGE,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ADIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3, THIRUVANATHAPURAM

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

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…n India, so that it is taxable in India in view of section 5(2)(a) of the Act, adverted to both by the AO and the ld. CIT(A), and even otherwise a part of the well-settled law (Raghav Reddi v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 720 (SC); Turner Morrison Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 152 (SC), to cite two). Toward this, Sh. Varma, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would submit that the receipt being in his NRE account, it is not to be regarded as receipt in India, referring to Board Circular 13/2017 dated 11.4.2017 (PB pg. 56). Also, the salary of all seafarers is exempt under section 10(6)(viii) of the Act. Both the said provisio…

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…guity in the language of the Act the section is to be interpreted by giving literal meaning to the language used in the section itself as laid down by the Apex Court in several decisions, noted in the sub paras below. (a) In Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 23 ITR 152 (SC) it was stated that. "The Courts have to construe the statute according to the plain language and tenor thereof and if any untoward consequences result there from, it is for authority other than the Court to rectify or prevent the same". 1. In CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd., 55 ITR 741 (SC), it was observed that "If the words of a statute are preci…

ARUN KUMAR VERMA, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2), BHILAI, DURG

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

SPE INDIA FILMS HOLDING LLC,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) -4(2) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result ground no-2 raised by the assessee- is fully allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalspe India Films Holding Llc C/O, Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Centre, Tower No.3, 27Th Floor-32Nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. Pan: Aaocs1827L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit (International Taxation)-4(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Narimaon Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.J. Pardiwala/Paras Savla Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Drp’] Dated 06.01.2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant, Objects To The Order Dated 19 January 2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 4(2)(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. P.j. Pardiwala/Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

…the case of Mushtaq Ahmed A.A.R 743 of 2007 wherein the AAR has ruled as under: " Let us now turn our attention to two important decisions of the Supreme Court which interpreted Section 4(1) and 42 of the 1922 Act. In the case of Turner Morrison Co. vs. CIT, 23 ITR 152, the question arose whether a company in U.K. could be subjected to tax in India in respect of the sale of salt sent by the company to its agent in India for sale. One of the questions considered by the Supreme Court was whether the income/profits from the sale of salt were chargeable to tax in British India only under S.42 (i. e ., deemed accrual…

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 285/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 285/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Classic Aircon B-265, Janta Colony, Vs. CPC, Jaipur-302003. Bangalore. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFFC 0473 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a lqu…