CIT v. Dr. David Joseph

214 ITR 658High Court1995#15309 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,252 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. David Joseph

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 982/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…aries’ share have been credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries (as has been done in this case), then the Trust is not taxable. a) KamaliniKhatau -209 ITR (101) (SC) b) Moti trust – 236 ITR 37 (SC) c) Indramma - 25 Taxmann.com 259 (Kar) d) David Joseph – 214 ITR 658 (Ker) 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a registered Venture Capital Fund and is a pass through Trust, such pass through status can be extended only to the extent of income earned on VCU investments since the assessee being a SEBI registered VCU is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec.10(23FB) r/w Sec.115(U) of…

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 981/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…aries’ share have been credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries (as has been done in this case), then the Trust is not taxable. a) KamaliniKhatau -209 ITR (101) (SC) b) Moti trust – 236 ITR 37 (SC) c) Indramma - 25 Taxmann.com 259 (Kar) d) David Joseph – 214 ITR 658 (Ker) 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a registered Venture Capital Fund and is a pass through Trust, such pass through status can be extended only to the extent of income earned on VCU investments since the assessee being a SEBI registered VCU is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec.10(23FB) r/w Sec.115(U) of…

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1902/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…aries’ share have been credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries (as has been done in this case), then the Trust is not taxable. a) KamaliniKhatau -209 ITR (101) (SC) b) Moti trust – 236 ITR 37 (SC) c) Indramma - 25 Taxmann.com 259 (Kar) d) David Joseph – 214 ITR 658 (Ker) 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a registered Venture Capital Fund and is a pass through Trust, such pass through status can be extended only to the extent of income earned on VCU investments since the assessee being a SEBI registered VCU is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec.10(23FB) r/w Sec.115(U) of…

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1401/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…aries’ share have been credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries (as has been done in this case), then the Trust is not taxable. a) KamaliniKhatau -209 ITR (101) (SC) b) Moti trust – 236 ITR 37 (SC) c) Indramma - 25 Taxmann.com 259 (Kar) d) David Joseph – 214 ITR 658 (Ker) 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a registered Venture Capital Fund and is a pass through Trust, such pass through status can be extended only to the extent of income earned on VCU investments since the assessee being a SEBI registered VCU is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec.10(23FB) r/w Sec.115(U) of…

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Grwoth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1345/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr
Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

…aries’ share have been credited to the accounts of the beneficiaries (as has been done in this case), then the Trust is not taxable. a) KamaliniKhatau -209 ITR (101) (SC) b) Moti trust – 236 ITR 37 (SC) c) Indramma - 25 Taxmann.com 259 (Kar) d) David Joseph – 214 ITR 658 (Ker) 5.0 On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee is a registered Venture Capital Fund and is a pass through Trust, such pass through status can be extended only to the extent of income earned on VCU investments since the assessee being a SEBI registered VCU is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec.10(23FB) r/w Sec.115(U) of…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 199

…ax either the trust or the beneficiary, it is no more open to the Department to go behind it and assess the other at the same time. 29 ITA Nos.505(B)/13, 533-535(B)/14, 633- 638(B)/13, 697(B)/15 & 836-838(Bang)2013 78. In the case of Dr. David Joseph [1995] 214 ITR 658 (Ker) the hon'ble Kerala High Court after making a reference to the above circulars held that once a beneficiary is assessed and his assessment is completed prior in point of time, and his assessment is an element of finality, it is a natural consequence flowing there from that the Department does not get any permission to go behind it for the pu…

CIT v. Dr. David Joseph (214 ITR 658) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax