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

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 144

…tributed the land] and Mr. Milan M.Parekh, Prop: Golden Homes Trading Corporation, as members of the AOP and as an assessable unit having regard to the ratio of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- [1] CIT V. INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN reported in 39 ITR 546 [SC] [2] G. MURUGESAN & BROTHERS reported in 88 ITR 432 [SC] [3] N.V.SHANMUGAM & CO., reported in 81 ITR 310 [SC] [4] FAQIR CHAND GULATI V. UPPAL AGENCIES P. LTD. reported in 10 SCC 345 [2008] 3[B] The learned CIT[A] has failed to note the joint development agreement having been entered into on ITA Nos.1012-1014-13, CO Nos.5,6,& 7- 14 & 930-932-1…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Persys Punj Lloyd Jv, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1274/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…interest and • para 4.1 of pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002 which mentions "joint right and obligations" including in the share of net proceeds from the project, which established the most vital ingredient for existence of AOP as laid down by Apex Court in 39 ITR 546 (SC). (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that none of the partners of the JV were individually eligible and competent for executing the project on their own and bid was submitted by them as an AOP for execution of a single contract based on pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002, and awarded on tha…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Persys Punj Lloyd Jv, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1273/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…interest and • para 4.1 of pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002 which mentions "joint right and obligations" including in the share of net proceeds from the project, which established the most vital ingredient for existence of AOP as laid down by Apex Court in 39 ITR 546 (SC). (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that none of the partners of the JV were individually eligible and competent for executing the project on their own and bid was submitted by them as an AOP for execution of a single contract based on pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002, and awarded on tha…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Persys Punj Lloyd Jv, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…interest and • para 4.1 of pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002 which mentions "joint right and obligations" including in the share of net proceeds from the project, which established the most vital ingredient for existence of AOP as laid down by Apex Court in 39 ITR 546 (SC). (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that none of the partners of the JV were individually eligible and competent for executing the project on their own and bid was submitted by them as an AOP for execution of a single contract based on pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002, and awarded on tha…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Persys Punj Lloyd Jv, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1271/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…interest and • para 4.1 of pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002 which mentions "joint right and obligations" including in the share of net proceeds from the project, which established the most vital ingredient for existence of AOP as laid down by Apex Court in 39 ITR 546 (SC). (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that none of the partners of the JV were individually eligible and competent for executing the project on their own and bid was submitted by them as an AOP for execution of a single contract based on pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002, and awarded on tha…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Persys Punj Lloyd Jv, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue in ITA no 1270 to 1274/Del/2012 for AY 2004-05 to 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1270/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

…interest and • para 4.1 of pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002 which mentions "joint right and obligations" including in the share of net proceeds from the project, which established the most vital ingredient for existence of AOP as laid down by Apex Court in 39 ITR 546 (SC). (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that none of the partners of the JV were individually eligible and competent for executing the project on their own and bid was submitted by them as an AOP for execution of a single contract based on pre-bid agreement dated 17-12-2002, and awarded on tha…

Sri Ramkrishna Samity, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T.Cir - 2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1680/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ananda Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Adhir kr. Bar, CIT, ld.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…9.8.1986 to pursue a common object as per paragraph 43 of Memorandum of Association to earn income from property held under trust. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Indira Balkrishna reported in 39 ITR 546 (SC). He further argued that, even assuming without conceding, that assessee society has to be taxed as an AOP by assessee not given exemption u/s 11 of the Act, it is required on the part of the Learned AO to consider the income of the society in its hands as on AOP and decide the surplus as non-taxable in view of its non – revenue nature, in as…