Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

129 ITR 295Supreme Court of India1981#1421 most cited

What is Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO authority for?

When determining if an activity serves charitable purposes for tax exemption, the primary consideration is whether its predominant object is to make a profit or to carry out charitable activities.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO · predominant object test · charitable purposes · Section 2(15) advancement of general public utility · Section 11 income of trusts · profit making intention · charitable trusts tax exemption · section 13(8) · section 12A registration · mutuality principle

Also reported as

6 Taxmann 19

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 10(20A)Section 12ASection 260ASection 37
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)mutuality principlesection 13(8)section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilitysection 11(6)section 2(11)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)cancellation of registrationsection 11(5)section 11(1)(d)

Judgments citing Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income - Tax(E), Circle - 1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1968/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kapoor Industries, New Delhi

Accordingly the entire three grounds rose in appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 4050/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Hauthang, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4049 & 4050/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-13) ACIT, Vs. Kapoor Industries, Circle-32(1), 29A-2/1, Desu Road, New Delhi Mehrauli, New Delhi PAN: AAAFK2669P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri K Hauthang, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri R. K. Mehra, CA Date of Hearing 13/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 28/05/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 2…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kapoor Industries, New Delhi

Accordingly the entire three grounds rose in appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 4049/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Hauthang, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4049 & 4050/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 and 2012-13) ACIT, Vs. Kapoor Industries, Circle-32(1), 29A-2/1, Desu Road, New Delhi Mehrauli, New Delhi PAN: AAAFK2669P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri K Hauthang, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri R. K. Mehra, CA Date of Hearing 13/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 28/05/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-11, New Delhi dated 2…

Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

…layouts and allotment of sites is only carried out with the primary and main object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. 5.9.4 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 has held that the word “business” implies commercial transactions with a view of making profits and gains therefrom. Therefore, carrying on business connotes some substantial, systematic and organized activity with the Page 10 of 20 object of making gain and profit thereon, with the inevitable control and direction vis-à-vis such activity of bus…

Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Range, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…y carried out with the primary ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 36 of 42 and main object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. 5.9.4 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 has held that the word “business” implies commercial transactions with a view of making profits and gains therefrom. Therefore, carrying on business connotes some substantial, systematic and organized activity with the object of making gain and profit thereon, with the inevitable control and direction vis-à-vis such activity of business. Profit m…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Circle- 1, Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Developemnt Authority, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1087/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…y carried out with the primary ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 36 of 42 and main object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. 5.9.4 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 has held that the word “business” implies commercial transactions with a view of making profits and gains therefrom. Therefore, carrying on business connotes some substantial, systematic and organized activity with the object of making gain and profit thereon, with the inevitable control and direction vis-à-vis such activity of business. Profit m…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ce was made to State of 17. Punjab V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V/s State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development (P) Ltd. V/s CIT[1982] 133 ITR 470198014 Taxman 58 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray V/s ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295/6 Taxman 19 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh V/s H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros [1964] 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat V/s RaiourMfg. Co. [1967] 19 STC 1(SC), Director of Supplies & Disposal V/s. Member, Board of Revenue [1967] 20STC 398(SC) and 17 ITA 4326, 4327, 4329, 4331, 4332, 4475 &4476/Mum/ 2017 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mrs.Sar…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Western Union Financial Services Inc., Gurgaon

ITA 4532/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Director Of Income Tax, M/S Western Union Circle 3(1)(1), Financial Services Inc., International Taxation, C/O Kpmg, Building No. New Delhi. Vs 10, 8Th Floor, Tower-B, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, C.I.T. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA
Section 9

…activity or conduct with a set purpose. In Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265, the Supreme Court held that underlying the expression "business" is the fundamental idea of continuous exercise of an activity. In Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 the Supreme Court again held that the word is of wide import and means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour and skill with a view to earning income. Therefore any activity which is being systematically and continuously carried on with the object of earning profits is a business activi…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e was made to State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the c…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e was made to State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the c…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…e was made to State of Punjab v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the c…

Anand R Bahl, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed and that by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. Vasant (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth (DR)
Section 2(14)

…rt, the underlying idea being of continuous exercise of an activity. The definition is in fact not exhaustive, and is to be construed in a broad sense [refer, inter alia, Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of U.P. [2004] 4 SCC 437; CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy [1969] 73 ITR 751, 755, (SC); Venkataraman Aiyar, J., speaking for the court in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT(A) [1958] 34 ITR 368, 376 (SC); and CIT vs. National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd. [1993] 1 ITR 350 (Bom). The word means almost anything which is an occupation or duty requiring attention as distinguished from sport or pleasure and is used in the…

The Indian Merchants Chambers, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri V.S.Jadhav
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 25Section 28

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income- tax (101 ITR 234 SC) We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry(Supra), wherein very categorically held that activities and services perform…

Samyak Consultancy P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2303/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28

…rt, the underlying idea being of continuous exercise of an activity. The definition is infact not exhaustive, and is to be construed in a broad sense [refer, inter alia, Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 437; CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy (1969) 73 ITR 751, 755, (SC); Venkataraman Aiyar, J., speaking for the court in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT(A) [(1958) 34 ITR 368, 376 (SC); and National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd., (1993) 1 ITR 350 (Bom)]. The word means almost anything which is an occupation or duty requiring attention as 7 स"यक कंस"ट"सी "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Samyak Consultancy Private…

Indo French Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Mumbai vs. ADIT-(E)-II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 386/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm Indo French Chamber Of Commerce & Vs. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax, Industry Exemption-11(1), Piramal French Bank Bldg., 4Th Flr. 62, Homji Chamber, Mumbai-400 012. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. (Pan: Aaati2658A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri vishwas Jadhav, DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) 11 ITA No. 386-1122/Mum/2013 Indo French Chamber of Commerce & Industry Asst. Year 2009-10 We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Comme…

ADIT (E) II-1, Mumbai vs. Indo French Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1122/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm Indo French Chamber Of Commerce & Vs. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax, Industry Exemption-11(1), Piramal French Bank Bldg., 4Th Flr. 62, Homji Chamber, Mumbai-400 012. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. (Pan: Aaati2658A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri vishwas Jadhav, DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) 11 ITA No. 386-1122/Mum/2013 Indo French Chamber of Commerce & Industry Asst. Year 2009-10 We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Comme…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ction in India, or through or from any property in India etc. 10. What is meant by 'business connection' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 and subsequently inBarendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295/6 Taxman 19 (SC). We need not dwell on the said aspect in detail for several reasons, though Circular No. 23 dated 23rd July, 1969 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would not be applicable as it stands withdrawn with effect from 22nd October, 2009 vide Circular No.7 of 2009. Firstly, the Assessing Officer had not invoked the said provis…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1562/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ction in India, or through or from any property in India etc. 10. What is meant by 'business connection' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 and subsequently inBarendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295/6 Taxman 19 (SC). We need not dwell on the said aspect in detail for several reasons, though Circular No. 23 dated 23rd July, 1969 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would not be applicable as it stands withdrawn with effect from 22nd October, 2009 vide Circular No.7 of 2009. Firstly, the Assessing Officer had not invoked the said provis…

Director of Income Tax (Intl. Tax.)-II

ITA/292/2014HC Delhi18 Sept 2014
Section 195Section 195(2)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

…gh or from any property in India etc. 10. What is meant by „business connection‟ has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Punjab versus R.D. Aggarwal and Co. [1965] 56 ITR 20 and subsequently in Barendra Prasad Ray versus ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295. We need not dwell on the said aspect in detail for several reasons, though Circular No. 23 dated 23rd July, 1969 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes would not be applicable as it stands withdrawn with effect from 22nd October, 2009 vide Circular No.7 of 2009. Firstly, the Assessing Officer had not invoked the said provision; secondl…

Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd vs. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed in part and to

C.A. No.-000009-000009 - 2007Supreme Court04 Jan 2007
For Respondent: Director of Income Tax, Mumbai
Section 241

…eld to be a business connection within British India. Such a close connection cannot be envisaged in the present case since it does not involve any such principle- agent relationship between the PE and the non residents. Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [129 ITR 295] whereupon reliance has been placed, is not apposite. Therein, the Court held that the professional relationship of a solicitor, who was a non-resident, with an Indian firm will be a business connection. There was a connection between the Indian firm and the British solicitor which was real and intimate and not just a casual one and the fee…