CIT v. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd.

116 ITR 125Supreme Court of India1979#12038 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd.

(Late) Shri Zachariah George, L/H. Dipak Zahariah, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 15 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 2599/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Arun Kurian Joseph AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2599/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016 - 2017 (Late) Mr. Zachariah George, The Income Tax Officer, (L/H Dipak Zachariah, Vs. Non Corporate Ward – 15(2), No.4/1, Casuarina Drive, No.121, M.G. Road, Neelankarai, Chennai – 600 041. Chennai – 600 034. PAN : AAAPG 4818J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant…

Pattabi Thiyagarajan, Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 247/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Pattabi Thiyagarajan, The Dcit, No.135, Pjn Street, V. Villupuram Circle, Tindivanam, Villupuram Villupuram – 604 001. Pan: Aaapt 3456B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 247/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Pattabi Thiyagarajan, The DCIT, No.135, PJN Street, v. Villupuram Circle, Tindivanam, Villupuram Villupuram – 604 001. PAN: AAAPT 3456B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Bhoopathy, Addl. CI…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kda Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5119/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Anuj Kisnadwalla, ARFor Respondent: B. Shrinivas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 28

…the company for the same. 7. Gifts as income from other sources : The assessing officer has discussed this from para 5.5.2 to 5.5.8. The Hon’ble ITAT has given its findings at para 43 of its order wherein it has referred to CIT vs. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd. - 116 ITR 125 (SC). It has held that gifts received from corporate bodies are in nature of capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8. Essential elements in determining whether or not a gift has been made The Hon’ble ITAT at para 49 says that there are three essential elements namely (a) delivery (b) donative intent and (c…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kda Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5118/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Anuj Kisnadwalla, ARFor Respondent: B. Shrinivas, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 28

…the company for the same. 7. Gifts as income from other sources : The assessing officer has discussed this from para 5.5.2 to 5.5.8. The Hon’ble ITAT has given its findings at para 43 of its order wherein it has referred to CIT vs. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd. - 116 ITR 125 (SC). It has held that gifts received from corporate bodies are in nature of capital receipt not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8. Essential elements in determining whether or not a gift has been made The Hon’ble ITAT at para 49 says that there are three essential elements namely (a) delivery (b) donative intent and (c…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Serum Institute of India Research Foundation, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 621/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

For Appellant: Shri T.B. Vijaya Reddy and Shri Mukesh Jha, CIT-DRsFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Abhyankar
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(24)(iia)Section 35(1)(ii)

…S.1 0(21) can apply. 5. In such a case the assessee stands at PAR with any other normal assessee in whose case, admittedly a gift cannot be taxed as income. 6. A reference is also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Govt. in CIT vs. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd.116 ITR 125. The Supreme Court, in the above case has held that a gift even of raw material subsequently used in the business of the assessee is not a revenue receipt, when it is received but it is only a capital receipt as it is a gift. 7. Reliance was placed on the Circular No.158 [F.No.173/2/73- IT(A)(A-I)] dated 27-12-1974 issued by CBDT wherein the CBD…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…n is just opposite and- involves a foreign company as donor. Based on the peculiar facts of the case, Hon' ble High Court held that there is no bar in receipt of a gift by a company from its shareholders. In the case of CIT VIs Groz-Beckert Sa boo Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 125 (SC) the company was' set up in collaboration with a foreign company for fabrication and manufacture of hosiery needles. It received certain goods, raw material and semi- finished needles, free of cost from foreign company. The assessee company claimed that while calculating profits from sale of finished goods value of the said raw materials and…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…n is just opposite and- involves a foreign company as donor. Based on the peculiar facts of the case, Hon' ble High Court held that there is no bar in receipt of a gift by a company from its shareholders. In the case of CIT VIs Groz-Beckert Sa boo Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 125 (SC) the company was' set up in collaboration with a foreign company for fabrication and manufacture of hosiery needles. It received certain goods, raw material and semi- finished needles, free of cost from foreign company. The assessee company claimed that while calculating profits from sale of finished goods value of the said raw materials and…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…n is just opposite and- involves a foreign company as donor. Based on the peculiar facts of the case, Hon' ble High Court held that there is no bar in receipt of a gift by a company from its shareholders. In the case of CIT VIs Groz-Beckert Sa boo Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 125 (SC) the company was' set up in collaboration with a foreign company for fabrication and manufacture of hosiery needles. It received certain goods, raw material and semi- finished needles, free of cost from foreign company. The assessee company claimed that while calculating profits from sale of finished goods value of the said raw materials and…

CIT v. Groz Beckert Saboo Ltd. (116 ITR 125) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax