C.R. Nagappa v. CIT

73 ITR 626Supreme Court of India1969#16148 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing C.R. Nagappa v. CIT

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…a representative assessee, as the trustee has no interest in the income since it is earned for the benefit of beneficiaries under the trust i.e. the assessee. In this regard, reliance is placed on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT (73 ITR 626) wherein the Judgment of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Balwantrai Jethalal (34 ITR 187) was approved holding as under(Page 374 of Compilation): “In a later judgment of the same High Court, the court reversed the earlier opinion: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balwantrai Jethalal Vaidya [1958] 34 ITR 187. The court held in that case that the…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI R.C. BAWA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1287/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(3)(ii)Section 4Section 5

…respect of which he was a representative assessee, but he was not bound to do so and he could assess either the representative assessee or the person represented by him in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CR Nagappa vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 626. He also took note of income tax return filed by the Trust for the Asstt. Year 2007-08, which was at Rs. 1,41,19,02,958/- wherein income was shown from long term capital gain, short term capital gain and also income from business. Further, from the perusal of computation of income, he noted that the Trust has declared income as per Income and Exp…

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2) (vii) of the Act was to be confined only to individuals and HUFs then gifts received by individuals and HUFs through the medium of a private discretionary trust…

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2) (vii) of the Act was to be confined only to individuals and HUFs then gifts received by individuals and HUFs through the medium of a private discretionary trust…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI MANU KOCHAR, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiacit Manu Kochar A Circle-46(1), A-16/9, 26, Mayur Bhawan Vs. Vasant Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aaapk1230C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Sumit Mangal, Sh. Saksnam Singh, Cas. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sumit Mangal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(ii)Section 4Section 5

…and tax thereon would be recoverable from him. Such income would squarely fall within the broad sweep of total income under section 5 and the beneficiary would be liable to assessment and recovery of tax thereon under section 4. In C. R. Nagappa's case [1969] 73 ITR 626 (SC) this was clearly stated. It was said that it was implicit in the terms of section 161(1) that the Income- tax Officer could assess a representative assessee as regards the income in respect of which he was a representative assessee, but he was not bound to do so. He could assess the representative assessee or the person represented by him. It…

MRS. SHARON NAYAK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1594/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 161Section 17(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(i)Section 56(2)(vi)

…ITR 0101]. Para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder, which lucidly laid down the law with regard to assessment of a discretionary trust : There are three judgments of this court which have a bearing on these appeals. In C. R. Nagappa v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 626 (SC), the assessee had executed several trust deeds settling specific properties for the benefit of his minor children. Under each deed he had settled certain properties for the benefit of a named minor child and had vested the properties in four trustees, namely, himself, his two wives and a married daughter. Under each of the trust deeds a porti…

C.R. Nagappa v. CIT (73 ITR 626) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax