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.

How many judgments cite Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.?

321 judgments on BharatTax cite Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 40(a)(i), Section 147, Section 35D, Section 80HHC.

Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Sonam Builders, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2926/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-3 M/S. Sonam Builders Shanti Niwas, 1St Floor Room No.10, A-Wing, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park New Golden Road No.16-Z, Wagle Nest Phase Xiii, 100 Industrial Estate, Thane(W) Ft.Road, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Bhayander(E), Dist.Thane-401 105 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs3498J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri,Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28/02/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.8,17,50/- Made On Account Of Unaccounted Sales Of Car Parking Area, Not Included In The Sale Of Agreements Of The Flats. A.Y.2013-14 Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.,50,000/- Made On Account Of Unaccounted Income On F.S.I Sale, Without Appreciating The Fact, That The Assessee Has Failed To Prove, The Sale Consideration Mentioned In The Seized Unsigned Agreement Is Not True.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 80GSection 80I

…elied by the Ld. AR of the assessee to support his contention which need not required to be discussed. When sufficient evidence is not with the revenue then no addition can be raised on the basis in view of the decision in the case of CIT vs Roman and company 67 ITR 11(SC) and CIT-IV vs Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 32(Guj.). Taking into consideration of all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) ) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of th…

ACIT-21(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Santosh Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5887/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Santosh Enterprises Income Tax-21(3) 1, Manshanti Chs Ltd., Room No.209, 2Nd Floor D.L.Vaidya Road Piramal Chambers Dadar (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 12 Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaafs1100K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 43C

…ses the firm where there was no continuation of the business of the firm. The facts of the present case are entirely different. As held in the judgments of the Apex Court in cases of CIT vs. Surji Vallabhdas & Co [46 ITR 144 (SC)] and CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. [67 ITR 11(SC), only real income can be taxed in contrast to the notional income. The Ld. AR has also highlighted that the observation of the AO to the effect that even as per section 43CA, stamp duty value had to be adopted, is also incorrect. It is argued that section 43CA would have no applicability in the present case. What has been transferred in not lan…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Aaradhana Realities ACIT 6(2)(2), Ltd. (Formerly known as Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Investments Ltd.) M.K. Road, Manickam Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Ground Floor, Vs. 1/3, General Patters Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600 002 PAN: AABCE0686Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, A.R Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.12.2020 Date o…

Blue Bugget Jewels P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

Accordingly ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1782/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1782/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Mrs Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1782/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Blue Bugget Jewels Pvt. ACIT 5(1), Room No. 568, 5th floor, बिधम/ Ltd. M. K. Road, Aayakar 314, Panchratna, Opera Vs. Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACB9761C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Mrs Kavita P. Kaushik, DR Virtual Date of Hearing 05.10.2020 : : 11.12…

Cigna Health Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…restored. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the principle of income does not include notional income is well settled by the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) and CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC). Referring to the facts in the in the instant case that the assessee and Cigna TTK did not qualify as persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act during FY 2012-13, it is stated that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. Giving that the assessee…

ITO 12 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Cigna Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

…restored. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the principle of income does not include notional income is well settled by the decision in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) and CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC). Referring to the facts in the in the instant case that the assessee and Cigna TTK did not qualify as persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act during FY 2012-13, it is stated that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. Giving that the assessee…

M/S. Mitsui & Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4377/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT

Section 44B

…order. e) Assessee’s contention that MIPL is legally and economically independent is not supported by the intentions of the parties in the actual sense. Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the cases of McDowell and Co. Ltd., and Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11). f) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley has very clearly stated that attribution of profits would depend on the functional and factual analysis to be carried out in each case. 5 M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. vs DDIT The above findings are applicable for the present proceedings as well since the facts in both these years are same a…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…- DCIT v. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, (Mum) (Trib) (ITA No. 6727/M/2012 dt.20/8/2014. Additions cannot be made merely on assumptions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures (i) K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 579 (SC); (ii) CIT v. Roman & Co., (1968) : 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.1, (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Mere suspicion, no matter howsoever strong, is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus. Case Laws for Reference DY. CIT v. ADINATH INDUSTRIES (2001) 252 ITR 476 (2002) 120 TAXMAN 822 (GUJ) 29 I.T.A. No. 7004/M…

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 3(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5815/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ssessee. Ld. counsel has relied on following decisions for the proposition that only real income can be taxed and not notional income. - ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); - Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd.v. . 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.…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…essment. 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 and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied). The aforesaid view on the above proposition h…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

…essment. 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 and Co. v. CIT [ 1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC) suggesting the contrary do not, we say with respect, lay down the correct law,”(emphasis supplied). The aforesaid view on the above proposition h…