CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (55 ITR 660)

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AEBPR 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CA Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Moh…

THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2428/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

…s. - CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick -vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar -vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Laljain (supra); CIT -Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-ITR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income by overriding title, but when after receipt of the income by the assessee, the same is p…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…. – CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick –vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar –vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain (supra); CIT –Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-iTR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income by overriding title, but when after receipt of the income by the assessee, the same is p…

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…. – CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick –vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar –vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain (supra); CIT –Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-iTR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income by overriding title, but when after receipt of the income by the assessee, the same is p…

FOMRA & CO.,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1648/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 18.09.2019

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…he firm nor does it alter the position of the partners under the Partnership Act or the Income Tax Act. This aspect of the matter was explained by Subba Rao, J. (as his Lordship, then was) in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bagyalakshmi & Co., (1965)55 ITR 660(SC) in the following words : "…A partnership is a creature of contract. Under Hindu law a joint family is one of status and right to partition is one of its incidents. The income-tax law gives the Income-tax Officer a power to assess the income of a person in the manner provided by the Act. Except where there is a specific provision of the Income…

AQUASUB ENGINEERING,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 929/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.929/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Aquasub Engineering, The Assistant Commissioner Of Post Box 5803, Tudiyalur Post, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 034. Circle Iii, Coimbatore. Pan : Aadfa 8028 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Subramaniam, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Vijayalakshmi, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…found that an individual coparcener of HUF can be a partner in representative capacity in the partnership firm. According to the Ld. representative, the Tribunal has also placed its reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the Principal Commissioner is not justified in treating the assessee as Association of Persons. 4. On the contrary, Ms. Vijayalakshmi, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that a HUF or trust cannot become a partner in the partnership firm. In this case, the HUF and trust were 3 I.T.A.…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUA SUB ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1959/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT

Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…a of a HUF or a trustee of a trust becoming partners of a firm. As per the Ld. CIT(Appeals), for the concerned partnership firms, these persons could be considered as individuals. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (55 ITR 660) and also the commentary of Chaturvedi & Pithisaria as contained in page 3805 of Income Tax Law Volume 3 Sixth Edition 2014. He thus held that the assessees were genuine partnership firms and therefore, remuneration paid to working partners and interest paid to the partners could not be disallowed. He deleted the disallowance made. 5. Before…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUA PUMP INDUSTRIES, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1958/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT

Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…a of a HUF or a trustee of a trust becoming partners of a firm. As per the Ld. CIT(Appeals), for the concerned partnership firms, these persons could be considered as individuals. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (55 ITR 660) and also the commentary of Chaturvedi & Pithisaria as contained in page 3805 of Income Tax Law Volume 3 Sixth Edition 2014. He thus held that the assessees were genuine partnership firms and therefore, remuneration paid to working partners and interest paid to the partners could not be disallowed. He deleted the disallowance made. 5. Before…

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,,MYSORE vs. ITO, MYSORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

ITA 188/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 194ASection 196Section 201

…n appeal before the learned first appellate authority who allowed the appeal of the assessee and the Tribunal reversed the order of the AAC. Hon’ble High Court relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Bagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka & Anr. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 323 (SC) held that on assignment of 50 per cent share of the assessee in the firm, it became the income of the trust by overriding title and it could not be added in the total income of the assessee. Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the order of the Hon’ble High Court and restored that of t…

CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co.

Judgments citing CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co.