Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

67 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1968#241 most cited

What is Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. authority for?

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

321

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Raman & Co. · 67 ITR 11 · lawful reorganization of business · tax evasion · bona fide business practices · genuine business adjustments · intent to evade tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40(a)(i)Section 147Section 35DSection 80HHCSection 28(iiid)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 153b(i)(a)section 132(8)section 132(9a)section 153(1)(a)section 145avaluation of sharessection 65bsection 65section 153(1)icdsdumb documentssection 153b

Judgments citing Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ansaction has to be seen as per the provision of the Act. It cannot be decided based on emotions and the moral of the assessee. In this regard we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. A. Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 wherein it was held as under: “Avoidance of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed is not prohibited. A taxpayer may resort to a device to divert the income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the ITA nos.834-986/AHD/2012 & No.3462-Ahd-2014 Asstt. Year 2008-09 26 device depends not upon…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…ansaction has to be seen as per the provision of the Act. It cannot be decided based on emotions and the moral of the assessee. In this regard we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. A. Raman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 wherein it was held as under: “Avoidance of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is distributed is not prohibited. A taxpayer may resort to a device to divert the income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the ITA nos.834-986/AHD/2012 & No.3462-Ahd-2014 Asstt. Year 2008-09 26 device depends not upon…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshacit-31(1) M/S Gundecha Builders, Room No. 111, C-13, 801, Hubtown Solaries, Vs. 1St Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E), N.S. Phadke Marg, Off Telui Mumbai-400051 Galli, Near Andheri Flyover, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan: Aaafg0848E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya (C.A.)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 260A

…, the balance salary was not disputed. The disallowance of 50% of salary was not based on any scientific method or by specifying a defect. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Roman & Co. [1986] 67 ITR 11 (SC), CIT vs. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8(SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT [1995] 37 IR 151 (SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT [226 ITR 734 (SC)], Dr. Anita Sahai vs. DIT [266 ITR 597 (All)] and MODI Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ito [2011] 13 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi)]. The ld. AR also furnished the copy of From-16 of Mahendra K. J…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…s of this case. There must be some material on record as evidence for addition. Addition made on the basis of presumption cannot be sustained in law. This position is strongly supported by the following decisions of the Apex Court: a) CIT V Roman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) b) CIT v Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) c) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) d) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 734)(SC) 5.3,7 In view of the above, I find that there is no justification for presuming that on money of Rs. 5,59,30,0007- was made by the appellant. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. The Ld…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 891/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Harish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Afspk5240H Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Central Circle-9, Vs Satish Kumar Luthra, New Delhi C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Ahhpk5236G

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

…e and in that transaction, the taxing authority cannot taken into consideration the market price or the issue price of the shares ignoring the real price that was paid. He submits that while following 6 the decision in the case of CIT vs A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and approving the decision in the case of Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad), the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Calcutta Discounts,91 ITR 8 (SC) held that the taxing authority cannot take into account the market value of the case ignoring the real value fetched for the same. For these reasons, he prayed to dismi…

The Dy. DIT (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Friends of Wwb India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assesseee both are dismissed

ITA 1608/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…minster's case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490 continues to be alive and kicking in England. Interestingly, even in McDowell's case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), though Chinnappa Reddy J. dismissed the observation of J. C. Shah J. in CIT v. A. Raman and Company [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) based on Westminster's case [1936] AC 1 (HL) ; 19 TC 490 [68] and Fisher's Executors case [1926] AC 395 at 412 (HL), by saying (page 160 of [1985] 154 ITR) "we think that the time has come for us to depart from the Westminster principle as emphatically as the British courts have done and to dissociate ourselves from the observations of Shah J.…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Jivraj Tea Company, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2343/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Jivraj Tea Company, Of Income Tax, 5/258-259, Jivraj Chambers, Circle – 2(3), Surat. Ruwala Tekra, Bhagal, Surat. [Pan: Aacfj 2236 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Cit-Dr

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

…. We are also in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld. First appellate authority that if the assessee has not earned any income then the same cannot be brought to tax as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. A. Rehman & Co. reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC), wherein their lordship is speaking for the Apex Court held that no provision and law permits the taxing authority to remit on ‘notional basis’ interest which ought to have been charged by the assessee. 13. Further, we may point out that as per the provision of s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act interest paid by the firm to a partner is not allowable as…

Preeti Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 254(2)

…ent notice was issued were not found to exist, and the moment such is the position, the Income-tax Officer does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Ganeshilal Lal Chand [1985] 154 ITR 274. On behalf of the Revenue, CIT v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 159, a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited. On a consideration of the matter,…

Nirmal Bajaj, Ludhiana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are hereby allowed

ITA 171/CHANDI/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: The Itat On 08.08.2017 Which Led To The Disposal Of The Appeals For Non- Representation Was On Account Of The Bonafide Belief That The Itas 171 & 172/Chd/2017 Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri Saarbjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 254(2)

…ent notice was issued were not found to exist, and the moment such is the position, the Income-tax Officer does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 and Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT v. Ganeshilal Lal Chand [1985] 154 ITR 274. On behalf of the Revenue, CIT v. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [1977] 106 ITR 159, a decision of the Gujarat High Court was cited. On a consideration of the matter,…

Shri Gaurav Joshi, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Oficer Ward-1(5), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.274/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Gaurav Joshi, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv., B- Ward-1(5), 18, Vakil Building, Model Jalandhar Town Road, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amjpj3603P Assessee By : Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…were not found to exist, and the moment such is the position, the ITO does not get the jurisdiction to make a reassessment. This view of ours finds support from the Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. A. ITA No. 274/Asr./2018 6 Gaura Joshi Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd, vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 245 : (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) . Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Ganeshilal Lal Chand (1984) 43 CTR (Rai) 120 : (1985) 154 ITR 274 (Raj). , On behalf of the Revenue, CIT vs. Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. 1976 CTR (Gui) 214 : (1977) 106 IT…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 261/VIZ/2012[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…within his powers to act on that information even if it comes to light from the material which was with him but was not acted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed sim…

Smt. L Sudha Bala, L/R of Late Sri L.Narsa Reddy, Guntur vs. The DCIT, Special Range Guntur, Guntur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 260/VIZ/2012[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.260 & 261/Viz/2012 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years :1984-85 & 1985-86 Respectively) L.Sudha Bala Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of L/R Of Late Sri L Narasa Reddy Income Tax Prop.Sri Venkateswara Agro Chemicals Special Range Industries Guntur 2-14-101, Syamala Nagar 2Nd Lane, Guntur [Pan : Acgpl2351P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…within his powers to act on that information even if it comes to light from the material which was with him but was not acted upon by him earlier. This is precisely the ratio of Apex Court’s decision in the case of CIT vs. A. Raman and Co., reported in [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). In the cases of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs. CIT E19591 35 ITR 1 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC), Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (5C), Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 409 (SC), and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), the Apex Court has expressed sim…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Millennia Developers (P) Ltd

ITA/735/2009HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171Section 260

…not be granted to the assessee. With regard to colorable device adopted by the assessee, we 15 find strength from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT VS. A.RAMAN AND CO., reported in (1968) 67 ITR 11 wherein, it was held as follows: “… But the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which accrues to a trader is taxable in his hands: income which he could have, but has not earned, is not made taxable as income accrued to him. By adopting a device, if it is made to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Millennia Developers (P) Ltd

ITA/734/2009HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 171Section 260

…not be granted to the assessee. With regard to colorable device adopted by the assessee, we 15 find strength from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT VS. A.RAMAN AND CO., reported in (1968) 67 ITR 11 wherein, it was held as follows: “… But the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which accrues to a trader is taxable in his hands: income which he could have, but has not earned, is not made taxable as income accrued to him. By adopting a device, if it is made to…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…assessee. Ld. counsel has relied on following decisions for the proposition that only real income can be taxed and not notional income. - Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); - Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. . CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC); - CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11(SC); - UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC); - Airport Authority of India v. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del. )(FB); - CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. 127 ITR 572 (Mad.); - JCIT v. Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. 78 TTJ 119 (Nag.) - ACIT vs. Manick Chand Damani 72 TTJ 675 (Cal.). 13.1. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld.…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IT [1971] 82 ITR 831 (SC) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (S…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ase [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490 continues to be alive and kicking in England. Interestingly, even in McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), though Chinnappa Reddy J. dismissed the observation of J. C. Shah J. in CIT v. A. Raman and Company [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) based on Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490 [68] and Fisher’s Executors case [1926] AC 395 at 412 (HL), Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 123/…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ase [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490 continues to be alive and kicking in England. Interestingly, even in McDowell’s case [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), though Chinnappa Reddy J. dismissed the observation of J. C. Shah J. in CIT v. A. Raman and Company [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) based on Westminster’s case [1936] AC 1 (HL); 19 TC 490 [68] and Fisher’s Executors case [1926] AC 395 at 412 (HL), Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 123/…

ACIT (E) 20(3), Mumbai vs. Seema Dilip Vora, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…) (para 34) Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. CLB [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639 (SC) (para 56) BLB Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 129 (Delhi) (para 14) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 45) 11 Ms. Seema Dilip vora CIT v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (paras 9, 34) CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124 (Bom) (para 21) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 446 (Delhi) (para 14) CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) (paras 10, 28) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) [FB] (paras 2, 12, 20, 48) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (S…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…s they appear, so as to know the truth. Reliance is placed on umpteen number of judgements, inter alia - ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 12 ( Durga Prasad More; 82 ITR 540 (SC); ( i Mcdowcll & Co., 165 IT R 227 (SC); i ) ( A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC); > i ( Play World Electronics Pvt. Ltd.; 184 ITR 308 ) i i ( S.B.I, 157 ITR 67 (SC); i v v ( Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., 63 ITR 609 (SC). ) ) ) v i ) All these pithy judgements underline the importance of dictum that it is the substance, and not form, of a transaction, which is important. In this case, the impugned gift has been part of a gift…