How many judgments cite CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.?

78 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (99 ITR 118), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 74, Section 90(2), Section 10(38), Section 115JB, Section 45.

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.

99 ITR 118Supreme Court of India1975#1461 most cited

What is CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The terms 'income' or 'profits and gains' are inclusive of losses, signifying that losses are 'minus income' to be factored into the computation of taxable income. Therefore, set-off and carry forward provisions for losses apply exclusively to taxable income or gains and cannot be pressed into service against non-taxable gains, such as those exempt under a DTAA or other specific provisions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. · 99 ITR 118 SC · Section 74 · Section 90(2) · Section 115JB · Profit includes loss · Set-off and carry forward of losses · Taxable income only · Non-taxable gains · DTAA exemption · Capital gains loss · Book profit computation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 74 Section 90(2)Section 10(38)Section 115JB Section 45 Section 13 Section 13(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 74 section 4(3)section 4(1)section 71 section 47 section 70 carry forward of losses section 127(2)transfer of capital asset section 2(14)trc section 90(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.

Nandalal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6949/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 24Section 45

…and toward which a separate section (sec. 14 A) has since been inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04. 1962. This aspect stands abundantly clarified by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT vs. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) explaining that an income to come within its purview must satisfy the definition of total income u/s. 2(15) (of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which is para material with section 2(45) of the Act), prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(l) and, two, must be comput…

Improvement Trust, Fatehabad vs. ITO (Exemptions), Rohtak

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6334/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyimprovement Trust Fatehabad, Vs. Ito(Exemptions), Near Bus Stand, Rohtak Fatehabad Pan: Aaati6435P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 24

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Improvement Trust Fatehabad, Vs. ITO(Exemptions), Near Bus Stand, Rohtak Fatehabad PAN: AAATI6435P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashok Goyal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 14/01/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A), Rohtak dated 04.10.2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the follo…

Nomura India Investment Fund, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 8140/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Saktijit Dey & Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J D MistryFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar

Section 115

…(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt then loss will also not be taken into computation of the income, and such an argument is with reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon’bl…

Netesoft India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…0(38) could not be read into Section 70 or 71 or Section 45 to 48. 2.4 However, placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. (2008 304 ITR 308); CIT V/s J.H.Gotla (156 ITR 323) and CIT V/s Harprasad & Co. (99 ITR 118), the said submissions were rejected since income would include losses also. Applying the aforesaid logic i.e. income would include losses, Ld. AO formed an opinion that loss would bear the same character and quality as does the positive income. Accordingly, if a particular income was exempt from tax, it would not enter into computation process an…

The Dharangadhra People'S Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Dhrangadhra vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 80

…ome was deductible u/s SOP of the Act. Thus the business losses of AY 2006-07 and earlier years cannot be set off against the income of the succeeding assessment years. The Hon'hle Supreme Court of India in the case of C1T vs. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) has also observed that loss from a source which is not taxable cannot be carried forward. In view of the same, the action of the A.O is confirmed and ground of f appeal No.2 is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The learned AR before us submitted that the impugned losses w…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1961/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 44

…of [IC (supra) of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in our respectful view the following decision of the Apex Court which has laid down the law on losses arising from an exempt source is more appropriate. 7.3. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad 99 ITR 118 has held that when any income is exempt at source, the loss would not consequently enter into computation of income. The relevant portion is as follows- “It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set-off Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequ…

Rare Investments, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) - 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70

…(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt then loss will also not be taken into computation of the income, and such an argument is with reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon'bl…

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dimissed

ITA 106/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Nandlal Tolani Charitable Vs Ito (E)-2(1), Mumbai Trust, 10-A, Bhkhtawar, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan : Aaatn0043Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 24

…and toward which a separate section (sec. 14 A) has since been inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04. 1962. This aspect stands abundantly clarified by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT vs. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC)t explaining that an income to come within its purview must satisfy the definition of total income u/s. 2(15) (of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which is para material with section 2(45) of the Act), prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(l) and, two, must be compu…

Sri Markandeya Maharshi Padmashali Gurupeeta Maha Samsthana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 277/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…income referred to in Section 5". Secondly, it must be "computed in the manner laid down in this Act". If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge [CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 118, 125 (SC)]". 28. As argued by the Revenue, though by virtue of Section 2(24)(iia) voluntary contributions are income, to our mind this by itself does not entitle the tax gatherer to ignore all other well settled principles of taxation and general law and levy tax on gross receipts without considering the claim for deductions. Principles such as ca…

Sri Markandeya Maharshi Padmashali Gurupeeta Maha Samsthana, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

ITA 274/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Sm Holding & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4689/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4689/Mum/2013

For Appellant: Shri F. BFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 45(2)Section 73

…the assessee-company in its share trading transactions inclusive of interest paid on borrowed monies attributable to that business was rightly treated by the Tribunal as a loss in speculative business.-CIT vs. Harprasad & Co.(P) Ltd. 1975 CTR (SC) 65: (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) and CITvs J.H. Gotla (1985) 48 CTR (SC) 363: (1985) 156 ITR 323(SC) applied. However, the AR of the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd. As per the 9 I.T.A. No. 4689/Mum/2013 S. M Holding & Finance Pvt. Ltd. decision of Bombay High Court both income from service…

Indian Leather Technologists' Association, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/KOL/2017[-----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…forward to AY 2015-16. However, according to Ld. CIT(E), in the case of charitable trusts the concept of brought forward losses do not exist. He, therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of brought forward of excess of expenditure amounting to 2 Indian Leather Technologists Association, Rs.61,23,380/- over income with the income of AY 2015-16 and the Ld. CIT(E) after considering the assessee’s submission and on perusal of books of account of the assessee found that trust failed…

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpana Madhani Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 940/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-14(2)(1), M/S Kalpana Madhani Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Securities Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 11/1102, Shanti Tower, Vs. M. K. Road, Shanti Path, Near Garodia Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabck2968H

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 73

…ITA No.940/Mum/2017 & 6 C.O. No.139/Mum/2018 M/s Kalpana Madhani Securities Pvt. Ltd. trite law, for which we may refer to the decisions by the apex court in the case of CIT vs. J. H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT vs. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC). ‘Loss’, it may be appreciated, arises from the same computation process and mechanism that results in an ‘income’, so that the two clearly bear the same character. As such, therefore, not only is the assessee’s business of purchase and sale of shares a speculative business, it is the same speculative business which has resulted in a loss of…

ACIT, Exemptions, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakasha Educational Society, Tunii

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 467/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

…income referred to in Section 5”. Secondly, it must be ”computed in the manner laid down in this Act”. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge [CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 118, 125 (SC)]”. 28. As argued by the Revenue, though by virtue of Section 2(24)(iia) voluntary contributions are income, to our mind this by itself does not entitle the tax gatherer to ignore all other well settled principles of taxation and general law and levy tax on gross receipts without considering the claim for deductions. Principles such as c…

ACIT, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 465/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

ACIT, (Exemptions), Exemptions Circle, Vijayawada vs. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 382/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

Tarakeswar Vivekananda Pally Seva Kendra, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-24(3), Hooghly, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1819/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.C.Gope, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sk. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, JCIT/Addl.CIT

Section 12ASection 143Section 145(3)

…income referred to in Section 5". Secondly, it must be "computed in the manner laid down in this Act". If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge [CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 118, 125 (SC)]. 28. As argued by the Revenue, though by virtue of Section 2(24)(iia) voluntary contributions are income, to our mind this by itself does not entitle the tax gatherer to ignore all other well settled principles of taxation and general law and levy tax on gross receipts without considering the claim for deductions. Principles such as cap…

M/S Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1056/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Sukumar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru

Section 14A

…in ITA No.211/Bang/2012. The learned Departmental Representative has further submitted that even if Section 14A of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harprasd & Co. (P.) Ltd. 99 ITR 118. He has also relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has brought on record the details and facts that the contribution of the assessee in the share capital of the firm M/s. Lakshmi Estate to the tune of Rs.61.97 Crores is not a direct inve…

Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…there being, in the facts of a particular case, no expenditure. There is conceptually no difference between positive, nil or negative income, i.e., loss; the last being where the expenditure exceeds the income (refer CIT v. Harprasad and Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC)). There is therefore no basis in law to say that the expenditure incurred and, therefore, its disallowance, cannot exceed the tax-exempt income, and neither has the Hon'ble Court in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) said so. It has, on the contrary, clarified that the disallowance u/s. 14A could not exceed the expenditure incurred in relati…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Nandlal Taolani Charitabhle Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is

ITA 200/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asst. Cit Central Circle 17 & 28 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri V K Agarwal

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(3)(e)

…mputing the total income under section (sec. 14A) has since been inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. This aspect stands abundantly clarified by the hon’ble apex court in the case of CIT vs. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), explaining that an income to come within its purview must satisfy the definition of total income u/s. 2(15) (of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which is para material with section 2(45) of the Act), prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(1) and, two, must be compu…