Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#356 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v CIT · CIT v Podar Cement · retrospective amendment · curative amendment · declaratory amendment · explanatory amendment · unintended consequences · tax law · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aminimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Wealth Tax-6 vs. M R Kodandram

Appeals stand dismissed

WTA/11/2017HC Karnataka18 Oct 2019

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR I.T.A.No.653/2016 c/w I.T.A.No.11/2017 IN I.T.A.No.653/2016: BETWEEN : 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDINGS ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575001 2 . THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575001 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s CPC LOGISTICS LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CPC (INDIA) LTD.) 191-B, BAIKAMPADY I…

Basheer Noorullah Khan, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 17ASection 53ASection 54Section 54F

…Page 6 of 9 payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also considered another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. as reported in [1997] 226 ITR 625. In section 54F also, the same term is used i.e. purchase as in section 54. This is also noted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that as per the section 17 of Registration Act, registration is required but the Hon’ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that for the purpose of provisions u/s. 54F, it is not essential that the assessee should become…

Smt.Jenobia Adi Doctor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6085/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Smt. Jenobia Adi Doctor The Income Tax Officer 101, Kaveri Apartment, Opp. Ward- 15(3)(1), 456, 4 Th Iit Powai, Mumbai-400 076 Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Afmpd6669R

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta Mainkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…efit of the assessee and hence, to be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. 8. We have also gone through the case law relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), wherein the concept of beneficial owner is explained. The facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that some flats were let out to various persons and rental income from these flats were included in the return of income assessable as income from other sourced under section 56 of the Act as the assessee company was not the legal owner of t…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988 and various case laws including that are strongly relied upon by the Ld. A.R. e.g. "Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT" reported in (1999) 239 ITR 775 SC, "CIT vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. & others" reported in (1997) 226 ITR 625 SC and "CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd." (Allahabad HC) (supra), has held that the national highways vest in the Union of India and if the government for the purpose of development and maintenance of the whole or any part of the national highways enters into an agreement with private parties or that merely because the national highway is b…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988 and various case laws including that are strongly relied upon by the Ld. A.R. e.g. "Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT" reported in (1999) 239 ITR 775 SC, "CIT vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. & others" reported in (1997) 226 ITR 625 SC and "CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd." (Allahabad HC) (supra), has held that the national highways vest in the Union of India and if the government for the purpose of development and maintenance of the whole or any part of the national highways enters into an agreement with private parties or that merely because the national highway is b…

Mokama Munger Highway Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri D.V. AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, (CIT) DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…d National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988 and various case laws including that are strongly relied upon by the Ld. A.R. e.g. "Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT" reported in (1999) 239 ITR 775 SC, "CIT vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. & others" reported in (1997) 226 ITR 625 SC and "CIT vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd." (Allahabad HC) (supra), has held that the national highways vest in the Union of India and if the government for the purpose of development and maintenance of the whole or any part of the national highways enters into an agreement with private parties or that merely because the national highway is b…

Shri Rutul M. Dave, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Int. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.D.R

…ue is accepted, it would be a derogatory step. 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Etc. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, s. 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate ITA No. 2722/Ahd/17 [Shri Rutul M Dave vs. DC IT] A.Y. 2013-14 - 4 - that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the…

Sujauddin Kasimsab Sayyed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5498/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sujauddian Kasimsab Income Tax Officer-2(2), 2Nd Sayyed A-5, 202, Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Vs. Vaishali Lok Nagri Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan- Chs Ltd. Midc Road, 421301. Ambernath (E)- 421501. Pan No. Axops1247C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh & Mr. D.G.Pansari, Drs Last Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…er, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. 7.6 Section 56(2)(viii)(b)(ii) clearly stipulates that where any immoveable property is received for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the p…

Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore vs. The ITO 2(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 68/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 54BSection 54F

…contention of the Revenue is accepted, it would-be a derogatory step. 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT Vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and w…

Mahendra Kumar M.Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Acit-18(2) Erstwhile Jain 1, Lawyers Chambers, Vs. Acit-14(3), Mumbai. Fr. Floor, Picket Rd, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aacpj5382N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mani Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 143(3)

…er, it is the date of execution of registered document, not the date of delivery of possession or the date of registration of document which is relevant. In the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), it is held that once the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. In view of above factual matrix and position of law, the 1st ground of appeal is dismissed. 3. The 2nd ground of appeal On the facts and in the circumstances of case…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Arpita S. Bajla, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6098/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 133(6)

…ngs relied of the various authorities by the AR of the assessee. In CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 343 ITR 38 Hon'ble Delhi High Court following the principles of constructive ownership as laid down by the Apex Court in CITv. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 and held that mere mentioning of name of a close family member in the agreement does not make them the owner of the property. Given the facts before me and following the rule of constructive ownership, I hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 54F.” 5. Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Learned Depar…

Valecha Badwani Sendhwa Tollways Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 11, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhvalecha Badwani Sendhwa Pcit-11 Tollways Ltd. 4Th Floor, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Valecha Chambers, Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv6105B Appellant Respondent Valecha Lm Tools Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-11 4Th Floor, Valecha Chambers, R.No. 417, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri New Link Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aadcv2787M Appellant Respondent : Shri Sumant Chadha With Appellant By Mr. Jitendra Trivedi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019

For Respondent: Shri Sumant Chadha with
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…l Highway Act, 1956 and National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988 and various case laws including that are strongly relied upon by the Ld. A.R. e.g. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC) and Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (supra), has held that the national highways vest in the Union of India and if the government for the purpose of development and maintenance of the whole or any part of the national highways enters into an agreement with private parties or that merely because the national highway is built, maintai…

Premkumar Khurana, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 3525/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Prem Kumar Khurana Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax 501, Raheja Centre, Central Circle 3(2), Free Press, Journal Marg, Vs. Room No. 339, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aggpk6149Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sekhar Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 68

…essee in favour of the aforementioned purchasers i.e S/sh. Umesh Tiwari & Yogesh Tiwari. In order to fortify his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. ltd. And Ors. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the A.O had not adopted any basis for working out the ALV of the property under consideration at Rs.21 lacs, therefore, the same could not be accepted. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. On a query raised…

Sh. Bal Kishan Atal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2649/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 234BSection 54Section 54BSection 54F

…ssee, 'purchased' the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section 54(1)". The question now is no longer res integra having regard to the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625. The apex court categorically held that section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not require registration of sale deed. The meaning of the word "owner" in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The apex court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 and this court in…

M/S Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6767/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…ree deposit of Rs. 75 crores given to AHRL and treating the same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing o…

M/S Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6766/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…ree deposit of Rs. 75 crores given to AHRL and treating the same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6414/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…ree deposit of Rs. 75 crores given to AHRL and treating the same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6413/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…ree deposit of Rs. 75 crores given to AHRL and treating the same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing o…

M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Academy Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

ITA 3160/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ward-7(1)(2), No.27/B, 2Nd Cross, 13, Bengaluru. Konappan Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aaect 8703 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Kavitha P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 M/s. TUV Rheinland NIFE Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ward-7(1)(2), No.27/B, 2nd Cross, 13, Bengaluru. Konappan Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN : AAECT 8703 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Kavitha P, CA Revenue by : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR-I Date of hearing : 17.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by the assesse…

M/S. Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exeptions, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 408/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 2(15)

…2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years: 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15) Page 57 of 151 v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others. 226 ITR 625 (SC), CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC), and CIT v Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. 89 ITR 236, 240 (SC). We are thus urged to follow the division bench decisions in the cases of other cricket associations and hold that the assessee is not hit by proviso to Section 2(15). 28. Shri Vaishnav, learned Commissioner- DR, begins by pointing out…