CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu

53 ITR 114Supreme Court of India1964#1555 most cited

What is CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu authority for?

An Income Tax Officer assessing income must determine the assessee's system of accountancy and, for the mercantile system, ascertain when the right to receive the income legally accrued.

73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu · 53 ITR 114 · income accrual · year of taxability · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · assessment procedure · system of accountancy · Section 145 · ITO powers

Sections most often in play

Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ACSection 37Section 40A(9)Section 10B(8)Section 194Section 194ASection 32AD
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 10(2)(xv)section 32asection 170section 40a(9)section 276section 145a(b)section 32(1)(iia)section 73resulting companysection 42section 47

Judgments citing CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu

Ashtvinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3883/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…cases wherein Retention Money is allowed as deduction: ClT v. Simplex Concrete Piles {India} Pvt.Ltd. 179 ITR 8) (Cal.) ClT v. Chanchani Bros (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. 161 ITR 418 (Patna) Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT (105 ITR 627)(Kerala) ClT v. Gajapathy Naidu (53 ITR 114) Supreme Court." The AO, after considering the contentions of the assessee, rejected the same by citing various reasons as has been enumerated in para 11.3 of the 8 I . T . A . N o . 3 8 2 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 5 a n d 3 8 8 3 / M / 2 0 1 5 assessment order and finally added Rs. 6,88,85,000/- to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proc…

DCIT Cir 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Ashtavinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3821/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…cases wherein Retention Money is allowed as deduction: ClT v. Simplex Concrete Piles {India} Pvt.Ltd. 179 ITR 8) (Cal.) ClT v. Chanchani Bros (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. 161 ITR 418 (Patna) Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT (105 ITR 627)(Kerala) ClT v. Gajapathy Naidu (53 ITR 114) Supreme Court." The AO, after considering the contentions of the assessee, rejected the same by citing various reasons as has been enumerated in para 11.3 of the 8 I . T . A . N o . 3 8 2 1 / M u m / 2 0 1 5 a n d 3 8 8 3 / M / 2 0 1 5 assessment order and finally added Rs. 6,88,85,000/- to the total income of the assessee. In the appellate proc…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

…in the option price during the year, brought it to tax. Reliance is placed by it on Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC); State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC); and CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC). 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 The issue The issue arising for determination in the present case is whether income has in the given facts and circumstances of the case accrued to the assessee or not? Admittedly, there has been no exercise of put option by the assessee or, equivalently, call option by A…

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. JCIT Range-32

ITA 2000/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’Ble, Shri G.C. Gupta, Vp & Shri R.S. Syal Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SPECIAL BENCH `F’ : NEW DELHI Before Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’ble President, Shri G.C. Gupta, VP and Shri R.S. Syal AM ITA Nos.1999 & 2000/Del/2008 Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 M/s National Agricultural Vs. Joint Commissioner of Cooperative Marketing Federation Income Tax, of India Ltd., Range-32, NAFED House, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACN0172F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Mehta & Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, CAs Department By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.20…

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. JCIT Range-32

ITA 1999/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’Ble, Shri G.C. Gupta, Vp & Shri R.S. Syal Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SPECIAL BENCH `F’ : NEW DELHI Before Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’ble President, Shri G.C. Gupta, VP and Shri R.S. Syal AM ITA Nos.1999 & 2000/Del/2008 Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 M/s National Agricultural Vs. Joint Commissioner of Cooperative Marketing Federation Income Tax, of India Ltd., Range-32, NAFED House, Ashram Chowk, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACN0172F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Mehta & Shri Sanjeev Kwatra, CAs Department By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.20…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amco Power Systems Ltd

ITA/765/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 260

…ree decisions of the Apex Court: i) Keshav Mills Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1953) 23 ITR 230 ii) Morvi Industries Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 835 iii) Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 32. In the case of Keshav Mills (supra), in paragraph-13, the Apex Court has held as under: “The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amco Power Systems Ltd

ITA/769/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 260

…ree decisions of the Apex Court: i) Keshav Mills Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1953) 23 ITR 230 ii) Morvi Industries Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 835 iii) Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 32. In the case of Keshav Mills (supra), in paragraph-13, the Apex Court has held as under: “The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amco Power Systems Ltd

ITA/767/2009HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 260

…ree decisions of the Apex Court: i) Keshav Mills Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1953) 23 ITR 230 ii) Morvi Industries Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 835 iii) Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 32. In the case of Keshav Mills (supra), in paragraph-13, the Apex Court has held as under: “The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Amco Power Systems Ltd

ITA/1046/2008HC Karnataka07 Oct 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 260

…ree decisions of the Apex Court: i) Keshav Mills Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1953) 23 ITR 230 ii) Morvi Industries Ltd., -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 835 iii) Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Gajapathy Naidu (1964) 53 ITR 114 32. In the case of Keshav Mills (supra), in paragraph-13, the Apex Court has held as under: “The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri Anand Krishna Conjeevaram

ITTA/593/2013HC Telangana10 Dec 2013

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sri M.D. Yashodharan

In the result, the appeal fails

RP/196/2013HC Karnataka24 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.196 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 11 (5) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY Mr.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., 7TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 ... RESPONDENT (BY Mr.K.K.CHYTHANYA, ADV.) - - -…

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital

ITTA/196/2013HC Telangana04 Jul 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eds Electronics Data Systems (India) P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/734/2008HC Delhi29 Sept 2008

Bench: This Court. One Was With Regard To The Payment Made To

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata BansalFor Respondent: Mr Aseem Mowar with Ms Mallika Poswal and
Section 115Section 260

…between the assessee and EDS Global Services Inc., USA was itself not in question. In Nonsuch Tea Estate Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court noted its ITA No. 734/2008 Page No.7 of 8 observations in an earlier case, namely, CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu : 53 ITR 114 wherein it had observed that the mercantile system of accountancy brings into credit what is due immediately it becomes legally due and before it is actually received; and it brings into debit expenditure of the amount for which a “legal” liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. It is in the context of the expression “leg…