Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka v. CIT

ARCIL RETAIL LOAN PORTFOLIO 001 J TRUST,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-CIRCLE 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the Revenue, being ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the words “revocable transfer” are well understood in law and a transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals or any of them. As observed by the Hon‟ble High Court,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ARCIL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION FUND II TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the Revenue, being ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the words “revocable transfer” are well understood in law and a transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals or any of them. As observed by the Hon‟ble High Court,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ARCIL SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LIMITED II TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon“ble High Court that the words…

ARCIL RETAIL LOAN PORTFOLIO 004 B TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon“ble High Court that the words "revocable transfer" are well understood in law and a transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals or any of them. As observed by the Hon“ble High Court,…

ARCIL CPS 002 XII TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the words “revocable transfer” are well understood in law and a transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals or any of them. As observed by the Hon‟ble High Court,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SCHEME A1 OF ARCIL CPS002 XI TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-21(3)(2) M/S Scheme A1 Of Arcil Cps R. No. 203, 2Nd Floor, 002 Xi Trust, 10Th Floor, The Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400012 Dadar, Mumbai- 400 028 Pan: Aahts8177K

…e contributors holding 75% of the units, we are afraid that the same would not render the contributions as irrevocable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. CIT (1948) (16 ITR 301) (Bom). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the words “revocable transfer” are well understood in law and a transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals or any of them. As observed by the Hon‟ble High Court,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM The ITO-23(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road IL & FS Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAAT16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The ITO-23(1)(2) Vs. M/s. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series III Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road IL & FS Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumba…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

…taxable in the hands of the mutual fund beneficiaries, i.e. the transferor/PTC holders as per provisions of section 61 of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka vs. CIT 16 ITR 301 (Bom). Reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (a) CIT vs. Jitendra Nath Mallick 50 ITR 313 (Cal.) (b) Gadi Cheluvaraya Chetty vs. CIT 150 ITR 60 (Kar.) (c) K. Subramania Pillai vs. Agricultural ITO 53 ITR 764 (Mad.) (d) Jyotendrasinhji vs. S. I. Tripathi and Others 201 ITR 611 (SC) 7.3.4 It was submitted that the prin…