CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.

73 ITR 745Supreme Court of India1969#14441 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14 Section 14A Section 2(18)(b)(B)(c)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

Judgments citing CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.

AVINASH S SADAMATE ACIT CIRCLE 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. RUCHI RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 2Section 2(18)(b)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…following case law: 1. Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2015] 228 Taxman 25/[2014] 50 taxmann.com 300/368 ITR 1 (Bombay) 2. CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 713/273 ITR 1 (SC) 3. CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. [1969] 73 ITR 745 (SC) 4. Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row CIT, [1966] 61 ITR 428 (SC). 5 Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. 9.1 With regard to Section 14A disallowance, he submitted that assessee has not claimed any exempt income. Therefore, the provisions of Section 14A will not apply. 10. Ld. DR relied on the orders of Revenue authorities. 11. Consi…

DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIPAL TREE VENTURES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2490/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle – 13(1)(2), M/S. Pipal Tree Ventures Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Room No. 218, 108/109, Mehta Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, I.B. Patel Road, Next To Swati Mumbai-400 020 Studio, Goregaon, Mumbai -400 063 Pan/Gir No. Aaecp 4464 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Uodal Raj Singh Appellant By Respondent By : Shri Krish Desai Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Respondent: Shri Krish Desai

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Fire & General Insurance Co. vs. CIT (53 ITR 108) has observed that but for section 78 of the Companies Income Tax Act, 1961 share premium was profits available. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd. (73 ITR 745) has held that after Companies Income Tax Act, 1961, 1956 share premium cannot be used for purpose other than 78(2). 18. As regards the various propositions and the case laws canvassed by the learned counsel of the assessee, the same shall be applicable after the factual verification of the documents claimed to have been submitted before the lear…

EXIND TRADING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 351/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…355 (Kol.) iii. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., (368 ITR 1) (Bom.) iv. CBDT Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29.01.2015 v. ACIT vs Rajesh Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 6251/Mum/2017 dated 20.02.2019 vi. CIT vs Allahabad Bank Ltd., 73 ITR 745 (SC) vii. DCIT vs Finproject India (P) Ltd., 171 ITD 82 (Mum.) viii. Credit Suisse Business Analysis (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, (72 taxmann.com 131) 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn in respect of Section 78(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned counsel submitted that the share premium a…

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. ATCO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), M/S Atco Ltd., R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 218/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 49/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Atco Ltd., The Income Tax Officer-6(1)(3), 6A, Lalwani Industrial Estate, R. No. 563-B, Aayakar Bhavan, 14, G D Ambedkar Road, Wadala, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400031 Vs. Mumbai - 20 Pan: Aadcg7438C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 56Section 68

…premium is in the nature of capital receipt and hence not liable to tax under the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed in this regard on the Hon. Supreme Court orders in the cases of CIT Vs Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (1996) 59 ITR 685, CIT Vs Allahabad Bank Ltd. (1969) 73 ITR 745 and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1197) 225 ITR 792 (SC). The A.O. has erred in treating the share premium of Rs. 15,84,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit when the identity of the seller company is itself confirmed by the AO as the purchaser company is 100% subsidiary of seller company. Thus, the whole transaction…

DCIT 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDESK SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7113/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7113/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit 6(2)(2) M/S. Edesk Services Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, 6-A, Lalwani Indl. Estate M.K Road, Churchgate, 14, G.D. Ambekar Road, V. Mumbai 400020 Wadala, Mumbai 400031 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcb5087H

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e premium is in the nature of capital receipt and hence not liable to tax under the IT. Act. Reliance is placed in this regard on the Hon. Supreme Court orders in the cases of CIT Vs Standard Vacuum Oil Co. (1966) 59 ITR 685, CIT Vs Allahabad Bank Ltd. (1969) 73 ITR 745 and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). The A.O. has erred in treating the share premium of Rs.7,04,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit when the identity of the seller company is itself confirmed by the A.O. as the purchaser company is 100% subsidiary of seller company. Thus, the whole transaction o…

ITO 7(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. HOMESHINE PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2231/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2231/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra, SrFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Lalka, AR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 78(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. N. K. PRADHAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2231/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Homeshine Properties ITO 7(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 11, Ground Floor, बिधम/ 6/603, Mantri Corner, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Sayani road Dadar (w), road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AACCH)443D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra, Sr. DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri G. C. Lalka, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.03.201…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4860/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash PareekFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 68

…Free Cash Flow method was recommended as fair value of the share for allotment at the time of issue. 2.1 Without prejudice to above, here we would also like to draw your attention in the case of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd. 73 ITR 745 that the share premium received on the issue of shares has to be included in the paid up capital irrespective of whether the share premium has been maintained in a separate account and it is a capital receipt. Drawing support from this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that share premium received on the issue of shares is a capital receipt an…