CIT v. Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org

236 ITR 553High Court1999#17388 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

compensatory interestsection 206asection 206aasection 10(46)section 10(20)section 197ainterest under section 201(1a)section 197section 271cprincipal officersection 206section 273b

Judgments citing CIT v. Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 360/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…common fund and had the right to participate Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer in surplus, the surplus would not be assessable as the assessee’s income on the ground of mutuality – CIT V/s Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org. (1999) 236 ITR 553 (Bom.) Section “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 359/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…common fund and had the right to participate Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer in surplus, the surplus would not be assessable as the assessee’s income on the ground of mutuality – CIT V/s Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org. (1999) 236 ITR 553 (Bom.) Section “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 358/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 133Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 80P

…common fund and had the right to participate Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer in surplus, the surplus would not be assessable as the assessee’s income on the ground of mutuality – CIT V/s Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org. (1999) 236 ITR 553 (Bom.) Section “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & th…

KALAIMAGHAL SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1404/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

…l over the surplus to show that they are participants. The same principle was enunciated in Addl CIT Vs Secundarabad club (150 ITR 401 (Appx)). Similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cement allocation and co-ordination organization (236 ITR 553). A mutual association arises when a certain class of people join or associates to contribute money to achieve an object for the benefit of one another and divide the surplus between themselves on that character, namely in the character of persons who contribute it. The cardinal requirement is that all the contributors to the common fund must be…

KALAIMAGHAL SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1403/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

…l over the surplus to show that they are participants. The same principle was enunciated in Addl CIT Vs Secundarabad club (150 ITR 401 (Appx)). Similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Cement allocation and co-ordination organization (236 ITR 553). A mutual association arises when a certain class of people join or associates to contribute money to achieve an object for the benefit of one another and divide the surplus between themselves on that character, namely in the character of persons who contribute it. The cardinal requirement is that all the contributors to the common fund must be…

CIT v. Cement Allocation & Co.-ordinating Org (236 ITR 553) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax