CIT v. Indira Balakrishna

39 ITR 546Supreme Court of India1960#2453 most cited

What is CIT v. Indira Balakrishna authority for?

An Association of Persons (AOP) is formed when two or more persons voluntarily join for a common purpose to produce income, profits, or gains, and it is the AOP itself that is taxed.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indira Balakrishna · Association of Persons · AOP · common purpose · voluntary joining · income production · taxability of AOP · section 2(31)

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

self occupied propertysection 80lsection 2(31)section 23(2)section 23(1)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 22section 40a(3)share application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Indira Balakrishna

Shrestha Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1482/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Shrestha Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1481/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Krishna Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1480/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Krishna Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1479/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Krishna Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1478/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1477/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1476/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Snehil Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1475/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1474/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1473/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

Shreeya Welfare Trust, Adilabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adilabad

In the result, appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1472/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 167B

…eing a Trust and beneficiary being a single person and the Trustees not being the beneficiaries, the AOP has to be taxed at individual tax rates only. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna 39 ITR 546 (S.C) Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos1472 to 1486 of 2018 Shreya Welfare Trust and others Adilabad. ii) COT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust – 188 ITR 224 (Bombay) iii) CIT vs. Shree Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 Calcutta iv) DIT vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Maftlal-247 ITR 1 Bombay 6. Thus, even on merits, according to him, the order u/s 154 is not sustainabl…

ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. L & T Hcc Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 8451/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8451/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito 12(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. L&T Hcc Joint R.No. 116, 1St Floor, Venture L&T House, N.M. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaal0661M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. P. Meena (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.09.2011 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -23, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Liable To Be Assessed As A Separate Independent Entity & Can Not Be Assessed As An Aop. 1A While Doing So The Id Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Being The Joint Venture It Can Be Treated As An Aop In A.Y.2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 2Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(v)Section 40

…wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no option either for the revenue or the assessee for assessing the members directly as was possible under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and also the decision in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) which clearly defined the taxability of income in the status of AOP. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in holding that Section 194C is not applicable in the case of the assessee and deleted the addition made u/s.40(a)(ia) for failure on the part of the assessee for not deducting tax at source…

Ganpat Mukundrao Murkute, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 2141/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…re in the nature of trade' then the .income from the same had to be assessed in the status of AOP since all the conditions to constitute the AOP are been fulfilled as laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishnan 39 ITR 546. 7. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary.” 4. Subsequently, assessee vide letter dated 16.2.2017 has raised modified additional grounds which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in t…

ITO Ward 9(4), Pune vs. Sh. Mahendra R. Vitkar, Pune

ITA 1213/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…re in the nature of trade' then the .income from the same had to be assessed in the status of AOP since all the conditions to constitute the AOP are been fulfilled as laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishnan 39 ITR 546. 7. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary.” 4. Subsequently, assessee vide letter dated 16.2.2017 has raised modified additional grounds which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in t…

Sh. Mahendra R. Vitkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Pune

ITA 1208/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…re in the nature of trade' then the .income from the same had to be assessed in the status of AOP since all the conditions to constitute the AOP are been fulfilled as laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishnan 39 ITR 546. 7. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary.” 4. Subsequently, assessee vide letter dated 16.2.2017 has raised modified additional grounds which reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in t…

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…an ‘Association of Persons’ (in short ‘’AOP’’) and not as an ‘’individual’’. According to the assessee by virtue of the Explanation added to Sec. 2(31) by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, the Apex Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishna 39 ITR 546 which gave an exposition of what constituted an AOP, was no more applicable. Further, contention of the assessee was that corpus contribution received by a private trust was not taxable. Contention of the assessee was that it could be considered, only as an Association of Persons under the definition of ‘person’ given in 2(31) of the Act, an…

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…an ‘Association of Persons’ (in short ‘’AOP’’) and not as an ‘’individual’’. According to the assessee by virtue of the Explanation added to Sec. 2(31) by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2002, the Apex Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balkrishna 39 ITR 546 which gave an exposition of what constituted an AOP, was no more applicable. Further, contention of the assessee was that corpus contribution received by a private trust was not taxable. Contention of the assessee was that it could be considered, only as an Association of Persons under the definition of ‘person’ given in 2(31) of the Act, an…

Kirit D. Sanghvi and 2 Others, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6866/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6866/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 26

…claimed before us are borne from the return of the assessee and found to be in order, then the A.O shall keeping in view the mandate of Sec. 26, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court so passed in the case of : CIT Vs. Indra Bal Krishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) and G. Murugesan & Bros. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC), wherein the Hon’be Apex Court had held that an AOP can come into existence only when two or more persons as per their volition had joined hands in a common purpose or common action for producing of income, therein adjudicate upon the claim of the assessee. That in…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Nagarbail Salt-Owners

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

ITA/100067/2015HC Karnataka19 Nov 2016

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(31)Section 260ASection 44ASection 80P(1)(d)

…Officer v. C H Atchaiah reported in 218 ITR 239 (SC) to contend that if the income is of an ‘association of persons’, then, in law, it is the association alone which has to be taxed. iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indira Balakrishna reported in 39 ITR 546 (SC) to contend that the word ‘associate’ means to join in common purpose and in the instant case assessee is an : 21 : association of person and it is the association alone which has to be taxed. iv) Commissioner of income Tax v. Chandmal Rajgarhia reported in 213 ITR 789 (Pat) to point out that the essential requirement to attract the l…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 199

…lomerate of persons could be held to be an association of persons for the purposes of section 3 of the 1922 Act. While interpreting this expression occurring in section 3 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indira Balkrishna [1960] 39 ITR 546 held (page 551) 'an association of persons must be one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action, and as the words occur in a section which imposes a tax on income, the association must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains'. The Supreme Court, however, administered the following caution (pa…