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 proceedings must consider facts of life, human probabilities, and economic realities. These factors are crucial in determining the nature of receipts and explaining financial transactions.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Durgaprasad More · Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT · 82 ITR 540 · 73 ITR 702 · human probabilities · economic realities · income tax assessment · burden of proof · facts of life · cash credits

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

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1450/CHNY/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

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…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Shri A.Senthilkumar, Coimbatore

ITA 1449/CHNY/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

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…

Ananya Finance for Inclusive Growth Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 959/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)

…le devices cannot be part of tax planning and avoidance of tax payment by resorting to dubious methods should not be encouraged. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of CIT vs Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609(SC) and in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) approved looking behind the apparent transaction to the arrangement or scheme involved therein for the purposes of taxation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del) held the separate payment of purchase price for shares of a company and non compete fees fo…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…sessee company, by relying on following case laws:- i) Rajabahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh V/s. CIT (77 ITR 53 (SC) ii) Sunil Siddharthbhai V/s. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC) iii) CIT V/s.Durgaprasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) iv) Juggilal Kamalapat V/s CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC) (v) Sumati Dayal V/s CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) And he treated the non compete fees as revenue receipt and added to the income of the assessee. Further, he observed that assessee has mainly relied upon the ratios in the case of Oberoi Hotels Co (I) Ltd 236 ITR 903 (SC) & Kettlewell Bullen & Co Ltd vs CIT 53 ITR 261 (SC) and further observed that t…

K Raghurama Krishna Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 391/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 K. Raghurama Krishna Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Raju, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle 1(2), Pan: Altpl9688G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2009-10 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 28.12.2018 In Case No.27/2017-18/Dcit Cc-1(2)/Cit(A)- 11/2018-19/Hyd Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short, ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

…ee had paid on money of Rs. 2,49,15,000 in cash for purchase of the property. Thereafter, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in the case Juggittal Kamlapet vs. CIT reported in 73 ITR 702 made addition of Rs. 2,49,15,000 in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act by observing as follows: “It is now a settled law that evidence are to be adduced by the assessee which may be direct or circumstantial or both. However, in this case under consideration, cumulative impact of all the facts must be taken…

Talluri Venkata Krishna Kishore, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1397/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11 Talluri Venkata Krishna Vs. Acit, Kishore, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Abkpt 0174 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Hari Prasad Revenue By: Sri T. Sunil Golutam, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Hari PrasadFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Golutam, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 69

…ee had paid on money of Rs. 2,49,15,000 in cash for purchase of the property. Thereafter, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 and in the case Juggittal Kamlapet vs. CIT reported in 73 ITR 702 made addition of Rs. 2,49,15,000 in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act by observing as follows: “It is now a settled law that evidence are to be adduced by the assessee which may be direct or circumstantial or both. However, in this case under consideration, cumulative impact of all the facts must be taken…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32A

…lly so that the object can be achieved, as held by Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Trade Tax vs. DSM Group of Industries, reported in 2005 UPTC page 121. Similar views have been expressed in the following Supreme Court decisions: • Kamlapat v. CIT (73 ITR 702) (SC); • CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (177 ITR 431)(SC) at page 434, and • CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. (176 ITR 117) (SC) at page 119. The Company has to also submit that section 32AC is a beneficial provision and accordingly, where two views possible on reading of the said section, the view benefici…

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, additional ground No

ITA 1942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43BSection 92BSection 92C(2)

…hat the fact that "the Income Tax Authorities are entitled to lift the corporate veil and expose the tax avoidance device/scheme" has been recognised in a number of other decisions also, some of which are being cited here under: (i) Juggi Lal Kamlapat v CIT, 73 ITR 702 (SC) (ii) D. H. N, Food distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (1976) (3 Ali ER 462) (iii) Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd V Meyer (1959) Comp Cas 1 (HL) AC 324 (iv) State of UP v Renusagar Power Co, AIR 1988 SC 1737 17 M/s. Aaradhana Realities Ltd. (formerly known as Essar Investments Ltd.) (v) Hackbridge Hewittic &…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack vs. Srinivas Sahoo

Appeal are allowed

ITA/65/2015HC Orissa04 Dec 2019

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

Section 131Section 68Section 69

…an be lifted, but this power has to be used in exceptional cases, if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetrate fraud has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT reported in (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC). But in the present case nothing has been brought on record that the assessee, Srinibash Sahoo has used the corporate entities for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation or to perpetrate fraud. No specific finding has been given with any material on record by any of the authorities below. Nothing has been brought on record b…

Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4604/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Ward-23(2), Part-2, New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamcs0742A Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150(1)Section 68

…1), ITA No. I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/Dei/2005 " CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 2 ITR-OL 68 (Delhi); (2014 206 DLT 97 (DB) " Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 " Littlewoods Mail Order Stores [1970] 75 ITR 327 (CA) " Juggilalkamlapat [1969] 73 ITR 702, 710 (SC) " W.T. Ramsay Ltd. Vs. IRC [1981] 2 WLR 449 " McDowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 " Workmen Vs. Associated Rubber Industry [1986] 157 ITR 77 5 Sheetal Infoservices Pvt. Ltd. 4. The authorities specifically relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (…

Secl Industries Limited, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 798/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Mona Mohanti, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…ate 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 fraud as 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…

Dilavarhusain R. Farasta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.140/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.DR

…action genuine." Reliance is also placed on the following case laws- 8.2.3 In the case of K. Ramaswarny vs. CIT - 261 !TR 358 (Mad) the Hon'ble Madras High Court followed the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 held that in cases where the Dilavarhusai R.Farasta vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2013-14 same persons entered into transactions though by introducing a corporate personality into some of those transactions, the income-tax authorities are entitled to pierce of veil of corporate personality and look at the reality of the transaction. The Court in that case o…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…ion (or resignation) resulted in the destruction of the profit- making apparatus or the source of income itself. Where the answer was in the negative, the receipt was held to be a revenue receipt assessable as business income fJuggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC) : TC13R.1230 affirming the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 458 (All) : TC13R.1231, Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC) : (1964) TAX 18(3) 163 : TC13R.1226, reversing the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 39 (Cal) : (…

M/S Sigma Cartrons Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 662/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha

…ate 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 fraud as held in Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT, (1969) 73 ITR 702 (SC); Union of India v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1'990) 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 ar…

ACIT, Cir-32, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Seth, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1420/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2012-13 Acit, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/S. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Ajhs 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.03.2016 Passed In Case No. 749/Cit(A)-9/Cir-32/2014-15/Kol, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Assessee’S Commission Paid Of ₹51,56,694/- As Well As Partly Restricting Section 54F Deduction Disallowance To ₹42,39,181/- Out Of ₹56,52,242/-; Respectively, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’ Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2012-13 ACIT, Circle-32, Jitendra Seth बनाम 10B, Middleton Row, 87, Karnani Estate, 209, / 2nd Floor, Kolkata-71 V/s. A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 017 [PAN No.AJHS 9552 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pron…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1432/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Acit-10(3)(1), Vs. M/S Neo Sports Broadcast R. No. 212, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Nimbus Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaccn2854Q

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…tally wrong as the terms and conditions between NCL and assessee were on back to back basis as per the agreement between NCL and BCCI. BCCI is a third party not related to the assessee. Therefore, the AO has wrongly relied on the decision of Juggilal Kamlapat 73 ITR 702 (SC). The addendum between BCCI and NCL and back to back agreement between NCL and the assessee clearly provide that no compensation for cancelled match will be paid by BCCI to NCL and NCL to the assessee. Therefore, section 40A (2)(b) is not applicable. 14. We have heard the rival submission and perused the record and also gone through the cases…

Asst CIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2007-08,

ITA 1430/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Acit-10(3)(1), Vs. M/S Neo Sports Broadcast R. No. 212, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, Nimbus Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400053 Pan: Aaccn2854Q

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…tally wrong as the terms and conditions between NCL and assessee were on back to back basis as per the agreement between NCL and BCCI. BCCI is a third party not related to the assessee. Therefore, the AO has wrongly relied on the decision of Juggilal Kamlapat 73 ITR 702 (SC). The addendum between BCCI and NCL and back to back agreement between NCL and the assessee clearly provide that no compensation for cancelled match will be paid by BCCI to NCL and NCL to the assessee. Therefore, section 40A (2)(b) is not applicable. 14. We have heard the rival submission and perused the record and also gone through the cases…

DCIT 30(2), Mumbai vs. Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 871/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiita Nos.870 & 871/Mum/2015 ( Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, 30(2), Room No.601, C-13, 6Th Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Kishore Kumar Agarwal, 19/400/C-2, Seksaria Indl., Estate, S.V.Road, Malad(West) Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aaa Pd4566E .... Respondent Co.No.132 & 133/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.870 & 871 /Mum/2015, Assessment Years - 2010-11& 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramchandran
Section 143(3)Section 44A

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases without taking into consideration the decision in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), wherein 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 facade. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of…

DCIT 30(2), Mumbai vs. Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 870/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiita Nos.870 & 871/Mum/2015 ( Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, 30(2), Room No.601, C-13, 6Th Floor, B.K.C. Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Kishore Kumar Agarwal, 19/400/C-2, Seksaria Indl., Estate, S.V.Road, Malad(West) Mumbai 400 064 Pan:Aaa Pd4566E .... Respondent Co.No.132 & 133/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.870 & 871 /Mum/2015, Assessment Years - 2010-11& 2011-12)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Shivram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramchandran
Section 143(3)Section 44A

…facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases without taking into consideration the decision in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC), wherein 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 facade. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…entities are carrying on business in their independent right and supplying goods to independent, unrelated third parties as well. Therefore, no question arises of lifting of corporate veil as alleged by the assessing officer. [Refer: Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT: 73 ITR 702 (SC) and CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) (P) Ltd.: 238 ITR 70 (Mad)]. He argued that Further, as long as the appellant acted in a bonafide manner and it was not a case of fraudulent or sham transaction, the Revenue would not, on account of commercial considerations be empowered to lift the corporate veil even if an incidental tax advant…