CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 1TR 540 (SC) and Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT

73 ITR 702Supreme Court of India1969#1185 most cited

What is CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 1TR 540 (SC) and Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT authority for?

Income-tax authorities and courts can pierce the corporate veil to ascertain the true nature and economic realities of transactions, especially when the corporate form is used to evade tax or camouflage bogus dealings.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Juggilal Kamlapat v CIT · Durgaprasad More · Section 68 · Section 147 · lift corporate veil · pierce corporate veil · reality of transaction · economic realities · tax evasion · bogus transactions · substance over form

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 101

Issues it is cited on

time barred assessmentcasus omissussection 153a(1)(b)section 2(22)section 153(1)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 40a(2)kelvinatormere change of opinionpanchnamasection 194a

Judgments citing CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 1TR 540 (SC) and Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade. The court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetrate s held in Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT, (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC); Union of India v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 184 ITR 308, 317 (SC): CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1967)63 ITR 609, 616 (SC) etc. Further the legislature can forge a sledge- hammer capable of cracking open the corporate shell, and it can, if it chooses, demand that the courts ignore all the conceptions and principles which are…

M/S. VISION MILLENIUM EXPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1645/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: BEFORESHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Khandelwal,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)

…ld the decision of the authorities below and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 7.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JuggilalKamlapat v. JuggilalKamlapat v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 has held that the income [1969] 73 ITR 702 has held that the income-tax authorities are entitled tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the rea…

AGS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,JASOLA DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…3 ITR 66, 74 Hon’ble SC Gosalia Shipping P Ltd [1978] 113 ITR 307, 311 Hon’ble SC Aloke Mitra [1980] 126 ITR, 599, 611 Hon’ble SC MB Kharwar [1969] 72 ITR 603 Hon’ble Kolha Hirdagarh Co. Ltd [1949] 17 ITR 545, 555 Bombay HC Hon’ble SC Juggilal Kamlapat [1969] 73 ITR 702 Hon’ble SC McDowell & Co [1985] 154 TTR 148 Hon’ble SC CIT Vs Durga Prasad More [1971] 082 ITR 0540 SC Hon’ble SC CIT Vs Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 80 Hon’ble Pr. CIT-6, New Delhi Vs A case involving make-believe paper work to Jurisdictional NDR Promoters P. Ltd in camouflage the bogus nature of the transactions is to High Court ITA49/2018 dated…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 36/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 35/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 34/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 955/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 954/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 953/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 952/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 951/CHNY/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…kumar Reddy, Director of Platinum group of companies, and assessable substantively in the hands of Shri. Sukumar Reddy. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, is applicable to this case, wherein it was held that the income tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 4. For these grounds and any o…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 71/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

…that Shri B.V. Reddy was only a name lender and all the transactions in the undisclosed bank accounts actually belonged to Shri Sukumar Reddy. 2.3 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, wherein it is held that the income-tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the Court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 2.4 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supr…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 70/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

…that Shri B.V. Reddy was only a name lender and all the transactions in the undisclosed bank accounts actually belonged to Shri Sukumar Reddy. 2.3 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, wherein it is held that the income-tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the Court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 2.4 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supr…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

ITA 69/CHNY/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

…that Shri B.V. Reddy was only a name lender and all the transactions in the undisclosed bank accounts actually belonged to Shri Sukumar Reddy. 2.3 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702, wherein it is held that the income-tax authorities are entitled to pierce the veil of corporate entity and look at the reality of the transaction and that in exceptional cases the Court can lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind legal facade. 2.4 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supr…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals are applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence." 7.17 In the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal façade. 7.18 It is very pertinent to note that the statement of Sri Uday Salian recorded during survey and u/s 131 has been confirmed by other two partners Sri Sadhu Salian and Sri Firoz Ahmed…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals are applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence." 7.17 In the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal façade. 7.18 It is very pertinent to note that the statement of Sri Uday Salian recorded during survey and u/s 131 has been confirmed by other two partners Sri Sadhu Salian and Sri Firoz Ahmed…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals are applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence." 7.17 In the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal façade. 7.18 It is very pertinent to note that the statement of Sri Uday Salian recorded during survey and u/s 131 has been confirmed by other two partners Sri Sadhu Salian and Sri Firoz Ahmed…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals are applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence." 7.17 In the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal façade. 7.18 It is very pertinent to note that the statement of Sri Uday Salian recorded during survey and u/s 131 has been confirmed by other two partners Sri Sadhu Salian and Sri Firoz Ahmed…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals are applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence." 7.17 In the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), it was held that the Assessing Officer could go behind the legal form and find out substance having regard to the economic realities behind the legal façade. 7.18 It is very pertinent to note that the statement of Sri Uday Salian recorded during survey and u/s 131 has been confirmed by other two partners Sri Sadhu Salian and Sri Firoz Ahmed…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. O.ARUMUGASAMY, COIMBATORE

ITA 777/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

Section 132Section 153A

…burden of proof, the principle of law that in the income-tax proceedings, facts of life, human probabilities and economic realities cannot be ignored, has to be applied which was settled in CIT Vs Durgaprasad More 82 1TR 540 (SC) and Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC). 17. Brief facts are that there was a search in the premises of the assessee group of cases on 15.03.2006 and consequently the assessments were framed for other assessment years and this assessment year also. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed from the books of accounts that there is cash deposit made in the bank acco…

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Durgaprasad More 82 1TR 540 (SC) and Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT (73 ITR 702) — Cited in 95 Judgments | BharatTax