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

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…hip was adhered to in the context of depreciation. 4.7. He further pointed out that it was a glaring case of the form disguising the substance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…hip was adhered to in the context of depreciation. 4.7. He further pointed out that it was a glaring case of the form disguising the substance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances w…

Ge Money Financial Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4235/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…hip was adhered to in the context of depreciation. 4.7. He further pointed out that it was a glaring case of the form disguising the substance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances w…

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4206/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…hip was adhered to in the context of depreciation. 4.7. He further pointed out that it was a glaring case of the form disguising the substance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances w…

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1357/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

…hip was adhered to in the context of depreciation. 4.7. He further pointed out that it was a glaring case of the form disguising the substance and, therefore, veil must be lifted. On this count, he relied on following decisions: - Juggilal Kamalapat Vs. CIT 73 ITR 702 SC - CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 - McDowell & Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer 148 ITR 154 SC - Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 4.8. He also referred to international accounting standard-17 and the guidance note on accounting for lease published by ICAI to bring home his point that the terms of agreement and the surrounding circumstances w…

Krishiraj Trading Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6524/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income B/9 Th Floor, Trade World, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6840/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.I.T. Circle-6(2) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, B/9 Trade World, Kamala Mill बिधम/ M.K. Road, Compd., S.B. Marg, Lower Churchgate, Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaack2257N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TradshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 144ASection 14ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of Income B/9 th floor, Trade world, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. N…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2829/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…pted, as explained therein, corroborates the facts and incidents of the case. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 (SC) Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 (SC) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) Workmen, Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. ARI Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC) CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the deci…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

Section 143(3)

…pted, as explained therein, corroborates the facts and incidents of the case. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 (SC) Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 (SC) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) Workmen, Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. ARI Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC) CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the deci…

Blb Cables & Conductors(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -5, Kolkata

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

ITA 1070/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2008-09

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…all transactions and making payment everyday for the loss incurred in commodity trading…. While passing the order the ld. CIT(A) relied on the following judgments of various courts. 1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 has 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 the legal façade. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has power to disregard the corpor…

DDIT(It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Accordis Beheer B.V, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5025/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/S Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director Of Income Tax Officer (As Successors To M/S Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/O Bansi S Mehta & Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2Nd Floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 112Section 391

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एल” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/s Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director of Income Tax Officer (As successors to M/s Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/o Bansi S Mehta and Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2nd floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5025/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण…

Accordis Beheer B.V. ( As Successor to M.S, Accordis Overseas Investement B.V), Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4688/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/S Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director Of Income Tax Officer (As Successors To M/S Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/O Bansi S Mehta & Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2Nd Floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 112Section 391

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एल” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4688/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) M/s Accordis Beheer B V बनाम/ Director of Income Tax Officer (As successors to M/s Accordis (International Taxation)-1(1), Vs. Overseas Investment B V), Scindia House, C/o Bansi S Mehta and Co., Ballard Pier, 11/13, Bootawala Building, Mumbai-400038 2nd floor, Hornimum Circle, Mumbai-400001 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5025/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7344/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Bharati Singh
Section 143(3)

…pted, as explained therein, corroborates the facts and incidents of the case. The law in the matter is well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: CIT vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 609 (SC) Juggilal Kamlapat vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 702 (SC) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC) Workmen, Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. vs. ARI Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 77 (SC) CIT v. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (confirming that there was no departure from the principles/ratio of the deci…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…by this Court that the corporate veil could be lifted 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT where the companies shared the relationship of a holding company and a subsidiary company, and to Juggi Lal Kamlapat v.C.I.T. [AIR 1969 SC 932 : (1969) 1 SCR 988 : (1969) 73 ITR 702] where this Court held that the veil of corporate entity could be lifted to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade, for example, where the corporate entity was used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation.” 17. On a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that proviso (iii) would be referable only…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…by this Court that the corporate veil could be lifted 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT where the companies shared the relationship of a holding company and a subsidiary company, and to Juggi Lal Kamlapat v.C.I.T. [AIR 1969 SC 932 : (1969) 1 SCR 988 : (1969) 73 ITR 702] where this Court held that the veil of corporate entity could be lifted to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade, for example, where the corporate entity was used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation.” 17. On a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that proviso (iii) would be referable only…

M/S Bhagat Const. Co.P.Ltd vs. CIT & Ors

ITA/85/1999HC Delhi16 Nov 2000

…v j:-,\r\ T n .--ln + HIGH COURT OF DELHI ITA No. 8i5 0f 1999 n "lh. ' Date of Decision :' l- December, 2000 *: l3:l :::::'"::::: e)':1 : *:* o*1 1??3h, N{, H;j#i;:",:rff: Ms. RadhaRangaswamy & NIr. B. Devasekhar. Advs. - versus ::: *::i:::: ::T:*:::* I *ll *:: ::* ;';',1i "7; . ; ;;iil?l,r.""' Mr. Ajay Jha, Advocates. Coram THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT, CHIEX'JUSTICE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN 1. 2. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yq. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YoZ- ",ti ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. ' ' This is an appeal under Section ,.U[l'of the…