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.

M/S. K. Chimanlal & Co., (R.F.), Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT, Range-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1281/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Prajna Madam, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…on concept of real income. iv) There is no fall in Gross Profit of the Appelant. v) Appelant relies on the following decisions. a) Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 225 ITR 746 (SC) b) Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. A. Ramand & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) c) Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Manharlal Girdharlal Doshit 231 ITR 89 (Gujarat) d) Highway Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 199 ITR 702 (Gauhati) e) Kesarichand Jaysukhlal v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 122 Taxman 307 (Gauhati) (4) Interest charged u/s.234B be deleted. (5) Interest charged u/s.234D be cancelled.…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…presumption or statement, if any, is corroborated with material evidence. The ratio laid down in Dr. Anita Sahai vs DIT 266 ITR 597 (All.), Dheerajlal Girdharilal vs DCIT 26 ITR 734 (SC), CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8(SC), CIT vs Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC), Modi Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer (2011) 13 taxman.com 114(Del.), CIT vs Shree Rama Multitech Ltd. (2013) 34 taxman.com 32 (Guj.) and CIT vs Devine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 158 taxman 440 (Del.) supports our view. Thus, we affirm the stand of the First Appellate Authority, resulting into dismissal of the impugned grounds, r…

The Salem District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1168/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1168/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: 10.04.2017
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…- for A.Y.2008-09. 3.0 Aggrieved by the order of the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the issue of notice u/s.148 placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Raman & Co., 67 ITR 11. :- 3 -: 4.0 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Appearing for the assessee, the Ld.AR argued that the assessment is re-opened to examine deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) which was already considered by the AO in original assessment. The Ld.DR further submitted that re-opening was made consequent t…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…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…

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…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…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…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…

Yes Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1991/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi and Shri Nimesh Jain-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 35DSection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ “ “ “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/1991/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Yes Bank Limited DCIT, -8(3)(2) 9th Floor, Nehru Centre, discovery Room No.615, 6th Floor, A…

Mr. Satish Arora, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Sh. Satish Arora, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-202, Vivek Vihar, Ward-38(3), New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Adhpa 5753 E

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta CAFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Bansal Sr. DR
Section 145Section 43CSection 50C

…e was a time gap of six months in which the property price had gone down. He relied on following decisions: - ITA nos. 1089 & 1090/2011 in the case of CIT Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. – judgment dated 18.2.2013 (Delhi High Court). - CIT Vs. A. Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) 6. With reference to above decisions, ld. counsel submitted that department cannot ask the assessee to maximize his profits. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The facts are not disputed. Admittedly the assessee had sold the ground floor property after six months of the sale of th…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…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…

Ascendas (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1255/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. M/S. Ascendas (India) Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ist Floor, International Techpark, Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, Corporate Circle I(1) Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 113. [Pan Aaacj 9055H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…CIT vs. Salitho Ores Ltd. (2010) 344 ITR 161 (Bom) (f) Eastern Investments Ltd vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 1 (SC) (g) CIT vs. Walchand & Co etc. (1967( 65 ITR 271(SC) (h) CIT vs. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) (i) CIT vs. A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) (j) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad) (k) Dhakesari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (l) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All)’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the submissions and confirmed the order of Assessing Officer and observed at para 4.2 of his…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ncome can be brought to tax under the Income Tax Act. For this proposition, kind reference is invited to the following cases: (i) Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (iii) CIT V/s Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT (iv) UCO Bank V /s CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (v) Airports Authority of India V / s CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del)] It is reiterated that as a shareholder the PE and the Assessee cannot be taxed on the entire income earned by OMIFCO. The PE is only liable t…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ncome can be brought to tax under the Income Tax Act. For this proposition, kind reference is invited to the following cases: (i) Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (iii) CIT V/s Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT (iv) UCO Bank V /s CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (v) Airports Authority of India V / s CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del)] It is reiterated that as a shareholder the PE and the Assessee cannot be taxed on the entire income earned by OMIFCO. The PE is only liable t…

ITO 2(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Walchand People First Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3527/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “G” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Walchand PeopleFirst Ltd., बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer – 1, Construction House, 2(3)(4), v. 5, Walchand Hirachand Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, 5th floor, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN :AAACW 0364 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3527/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asse…

Walchand People First Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2543/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “G” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Walchand PeopleFirst Ltd., बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer – 1, Construction House, 2(3)(4), v. 5, Walchand Hirachand Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, 5th floor, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN :AAACW 0364 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3527/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asse…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. D.K.G Company, New Delhi

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

ITA 4711/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

…r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachaoo Andolan 132 Taxman 373 has itself disapproved the decision of Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. and reconfirmed the principle laid down in the case of CIT Vs. A Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11. However, in my view, the agreement between Sh.D.D. Goel and appellant firm is a genuine document based on business interest of both the parties and the same cannot be considered as instrument for tax evasion or to hoodwink the interest of the revenue. Further, whether the said agreement is genuine or not is to. be considered at the time the said a…

CIT vs. Discovery Holdings Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1097 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…hasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co.: (1968) 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable. These two judgments were approvingly noticed and applied by the Supreme Court…

CIT vs. Discovery Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1090 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…hasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co.: (1968) 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable. These two judgments were approvingly noticed and applied by the Supreme Court…

CIT vs. Discovery Estates Pvt Ltd

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA - 1089 / 2011HC Delhi18 Feb 2013
For Appellant: Mr N. P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchesh Sinha

…hasers, the mere fact that goods were sold at a concessional rate would not entitle the income tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as profit of the assessee. In CIT v. A. Raman & Co.: (1968) 67 ITR 11 the Supreme Court held that the law does not oblige a trader to make the maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions. Income which actually accrues is taxable, but income which the assessee could have, but has not in fact earned, is not made taxable. These two judgments were approvingly noticed and applied by the Supreme Court…