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 367,154 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.

Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Ssk Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Smt. Shubhada KoppaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Rao
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no A.Y. 2014-15 2015-16 income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna S…

Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Ssk Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Shubhada KoppaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Rao
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no A.Y. 2014-15 2015-16 income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna S…

Loknete Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi (through physical)For Respondent: S/Shri B.K. Rao & M.G Jasnani (through physical)
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Loknete Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 634/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi (through physical)For Respondent: S/Shri B.K. Rao & M.G Jasnani (through physical)
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Loknete Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 635/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi (through physical)For Respondent: S/Shri B.K. Rao & M.G Jasnani (through physical)
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Loknete Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara Circle, Satara

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 633/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Joshi (through physical)For Respondent: S/Shri B.K. Rao & M.G Jasnani (through physical)
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Sonhira Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2558/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Sonhira Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2557/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

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

ITA 2766/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni &For Respondent: Shri S.P.Walimbe
Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…see furnished following written submissions raising the issues for consideration of the CIT(A) in respective cases :- “1. Hon’ble ITAT, Pune, in Chh. Shahu SSK ITA No. 1924- 26/PN/90 vide order dated 8/8/1996, at paras 32-39, following ratio of A. Raman & CO, 67 ITR 11 (SC), held that no income accrued to the assessee on sale of sugar at concession rate to its members. 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in CIT v. Terna SSSK, 301 ITR 222, has noted that Counsel for the Dept, in view of Circular No. 117 dt. 22/8/1973 did not press this ground in appeal. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT v. Krishna SSK, (2012) 211 Taxman…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/73/2021HC Delhi19 Jan 2022
Section 260A

…ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 53 $~J-2 to 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on 09.08.2021 Judgment pronounced on 19.01.2022 + ITA 68/2021 & CM No. 9319/2021 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3, NEW DELHI ......Appellant Through: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advs. with Mr Mahesh…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/71/2021HC Delhi19 Jan 2022
Section 260A

…ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 53 $~J-2 to 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on 09.08.2021 Judgment pronounced on 19.01.2022 + ITA 68/2021 & CM No. 9319/2021 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3, NEW DELHI ......Appellant Through: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advs. with Mr Mahesh…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/69/2021HC Delhi19 Jan 2022
Section 260A

…ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 53 $~J-2 to 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on 09.08.2021 Judgment pronounced on 19.01.2022 + ITA 68/2021 & CM No. 9319/2021 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3, NEW DELHI ......Appellant Through: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advs. with Mr Mahesh…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

ITA/68/2021HC Delhi19 Jan 2022
Section 260A

…ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 53 $~J-2 to 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on 09.08.2021 Judgment pronounced on 19.01.2022 + ITA 68/2021 & CM No. 9319/2021 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3, NEW DELHI ......Appellant Through: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advs. with Mr Mahesh…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ceat Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

ITA 673/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar & Shri Manprit Duggal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 47

…e assessment. In our opinion, an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material (and no more) does not give him that power. That was the view taken by this Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh V. CIT (1959)35 ITR 1 (SC), CIT V. A.Raman and Co. (1968)67 ITR 11 (SC) and Bankipur Club Ltd. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 831 (SC) and we do not believe that the law has since taken a different course. Any observations in Kalyanji Mavji & Co. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287(SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid view on the above proportion has…

Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1254/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1254/Ahd/2016 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs. Ward-10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Ahmedabad. Barage Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aetpj5973L

For Appellant: Shri Asseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 145(3)

…11-12 9 the fact that the purchases from the partners are shown to be at an inflated price. The Supreme Court has pointed out in Calcutta Discount Company's case [1973] 9.1 ITR 8 , 13 (SC), quoting from Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Raman & Company [19681 67 ITR 11 (SC): "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 ITA No. 1420/Ahd/2013 Asst. Year 2009-10 19 income before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon Considerations of morality, but on the operation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…tions. Bonafide sales made cannot be adversely viewed and sales amount actually realized cannot be questioned by the AO. Reliance for this proposition was made by the Ld. AR on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. as reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC). 38. It is also submitted by Ld. AR that there is no dispute on costs incurred by the assessee on this project. Similarly the sale price realized by the assessee has also been accepted by the Ld. AO in all subsequent assessment years i.e. A. Y. 2010- 11, A. Y. 2011-12 and A. Y. 2012-13, which is the period during which this project of Dwarka…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…tions. Bonafide sales made cannot be adversely viewed and sales amount actually realized cannot be questioned by the AO. Reliance for this proposition was made by the Ld. AR on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. as reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC). 38. It is also submitted by Ld. AR that there is no dispute on costs incurred by the assessee on this project. Similarly the sale price realized by the assessee has also been accepted by the Ld. AO in all subsequent assessment years i.e. A. Y. 2010- 11, A. Y. 2011-12 and A. Y. 2012-13, which is the period during which this project of Dwarka…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…tions. Bonafide sales made cannot be adversely viewed and sales amount actually realized cannot be questioned by the AO. Reliance for this proposition was made by the Ld. AR on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. as reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC). 38. It is also submitted by Ld. AR that there is no dispute on costs incurred by the assessee on this project. Similarly the sale price realized by the assessee has also been accepted by the Ld. AO in all subsequent assessment years i.e. A. Y. 2010- 11, A. Y. 2011-12 and A. Y. 2012-13, which is the period during which this project of Dwarka…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…tions. Bonafide sales made cannot be adversely viewed and sales amount actually realized cannot be questioned by the AO. Reliance for this proposition was made by the Ld. AR on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. as reported in 67 ITR 11 (SC). 38. It is also submitted by Ld. AR that there is no dispute on costs incurred by the assessee on this project. Similarly the sale price realized by the assessee has also been accepted by the Ld. AO in all subsequent assessment years i.e. A. Y. 2010- 11, A. Y. 2011-12 and A. Y. 2012-13, which is the period during which this project of Dwarka…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

…not force the assessee to sell at a particular rate. He submitted that the Revenue cannot compel the assessee to sell the goods at particular price. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- CO.277/Del/2016 1. CIT v. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 ITR 952 (Mad) 4. S. Sivan Pillai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) 14.1 As far as page 10 of Annexure A-24/D-7 is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assess…