What is CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that income tax is levied on real income, not on hypothetical or notional accrual. For income to be taxable, it must genuinely accrue or be received, taking into account the realistic probability of its realization.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd.?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. (89 ITR 266), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(1), Section 144, Section 145.

CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. (89 ITR 266)

The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girish R. Tanti, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 113/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…s. Consequently, the assessee challenged the inclusion of such amount within its assessable income on the ground that no real income had accrued. Reiterating its earlier decision in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT(1971) 82 ITR 835 and CIT v. Birla Gwalior (1973) 89 ITR 266, the Supreme Court held that tax cannot be imposed on hypothetical accrual of income. It was observed that the question of real accrual of income must be considered by I.T.A No. 113/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 10 Dy. CIT vs. Shri Girish R. Tanti taking the probability of realisation in a realistic manner. In the case of Asian Hotels(2010) 323 I…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt.Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…ttled principle of law that it is real income alone which is taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas vs. CIT, 46 ITR 194 (SC) and reiterated again CIT vs. Birla Gwalior, 89 ITR 266 (SC) Further, the Department has not controverted the submissions of the appellant company that for the purpose of computing the taxable income, the cost of construction of the flats alone was considered, claimed as deduction, which means that the value of opening inventory or closing inventory had no bearing in determination of the taxable income…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd (Pune Mumbai Realty P Ltd Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd Merged With Kumar Urban Development P Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1323/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteswararao

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…ttled principle of law that it is real income alone which is taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas vs. CIT, 46 ITR 194 (SC) and reiterated again CIT vs. Birla Gwalior, 89 ITR 266 (SC) Further, the Department has not controverted the submissions of the appellant company that for the purpose of computing the taxable income, the cost of construction of the flats alone was considered, claimed as deduction, which means that the value of opening inventory or closing inventory had no bearing in determination of the taxable income…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on facts. Reference was made in this context to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) wherein it was held, after referring to Morvi Industries that real accrual of income and not a hypothetical accrual of income ought to be taken into consideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on facts. Reference was made in this context to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) wherein it was held, after referring to Morvi Industries that real accrual of income and not a hypothetical accrual of income ought to be taken into consideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on…

Suprerior Financial Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7501/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 43(1)(ii)

…nd Construction Ltd. 1974 CTR (SC) 157 : (1972) 83 ITR 211 (SC). Thirdly, it is settled principle of IT law that it is the real income, which is taxable under the Act. This proposition was enunciated in CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 349: (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC), which was pronounced in CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 [SC)...” In view of above, it is respectfully submitted that conversion by itself cannot generate any income chargeable to tax. Therefore, there is no question of invoking provision of s. 41(1) on conversion of stock into investment so as to charge tax on the differen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary vs. Shri Vazhyiel House Narayanan Kutty Menon, Bellary

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinated as to amount virtually to a negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made, agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency, simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In examining an…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.3317/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.3318/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2014-2015 ITA No.3319/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and The Asst.Commissioner of Brothers, Mine Owners, P.B.No.4, Income-tax, Circle – 1 v. Nehru Co-operative Colony Bellary – 583 103. Hosapete – 583 201. PAN : AACFG6895M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate Respondent by :Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Date of Hearing :…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.3317/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.3318/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2014-2015 ITA No.3319/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and The Asst.Commissioner of Brothers, Mine Owners, P.B.No.4, Income-tax, Circle – 1 v. Nehru Co-operative Colony Bellary – 583 103. Hosapete – 583 201. PAN : AACFG6895M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate Respondent by :Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Date of Hearing :…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.3317/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.3318/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2014-2015 ITA No.3319/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and The Asst.Commissioner of Brothers, Mine Owners, P.B.No.4, Income-tax, Circle – 1 v. Nehru Co-operative Colony Bellary – 583 103. Hosapete – 583 201. PAN : AACFG6895M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate Respondent by :Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Date of Hearing :…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ozone India Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2081/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R

Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. Nos. 2081/Ahd/2018 WITH CROSS OBJECTION No. 103/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) DCIT M/s. Ozone India Ltd. बनाम/ Circle 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad 301/1, Parshwa, Opp. Vs. Rajpath Club, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACO9588N (Appellant / Respondent) .. (Respondent / Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से/Reven…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT

Section 145Section 28Section 5

…me even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page 45 of 138 A.Y:2013-14 case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinated as to amount virtually to a negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made, agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency, simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In examining an…

ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Duncans Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1450/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

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

…erated on a number of occasions by various courts such as in the case of CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd., (163 Taxman 541) by the Delhi High Court wherein reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Birla Gwalior reported in 89 ITR 266 to the effect that when there was no real accrual of interest and the assessee has also not recorded interest in its books of account, no notional interest can be levied on such loans. It is also evident from the accounts of the appellant that no interest has been charged on the amounts for the year under consideration. Considering the entire gamu…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1271/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinated as to amount virtually to a negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made, agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency, simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In examining an…

M/S. Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee for A

ITA 1270/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shree Vijay Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 37(1)Section 80I

…held that, surrender of income even after closure of accounting year may make no difference to the concept of real income. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, relied on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd reported in (1973) 89 ITR 266 as under: “The principle of real income is not to be subordinated as to amount virtually to a negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made, agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency, simply because it takes place sometime after the close of an accounting year. In examining an…