How many judgments cite CIT v. Kamalini Khatau?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (209 ITR 101), spanning 2016 to 2024.

CIT v. Kamalini Khatau

209 ITR 101Supreme Court of India1994#4919 most cited

What is CIT v. Kamalini Khatau authority for?

Income received by a beneficiary from a trust takes the colour of the trust's income. If the trust distributes capital, it is not income in the hands of the beneficiary.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kamalini Khatau · 209 ITR 101 · SC · income of trust · beneficiary · capital receipt · income receipt · corpus distribution

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamalini Khatau

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)

…t a ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 16 -: discretionary trust could be assessed only as an AOP and not in the status of an individual. Finally ld. Departmental Representative relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101, stated that a private discretionary trust could be deemed as an AOP only for the purpose of charging tax. As for the amendment made by Finance Act, 2017, whereby 18. sub clause (x) to section 56(2) of the Act was introduced, according to the ld. Departmental Representative, this had no relevance, since it was brought in, only to bring within t…

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

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)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Manu Kochar, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiacit Manu Kochar A Circle-46(1), A-16/9, 26, Mayur Bhawan Vs. Vasant Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aaapk1230C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Sumit Mangal, Sh. Saksnam Singh, Cas. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sumit Mangal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(ii)Section 4Section 5

…existing law u/s 160 to 166 of I.T.Act,1961. The appellant being one of beneficiaries, got the receipt from trust as non taxable receipt, hence capital receipt in his hand. This is also confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau 209 ITR 101(1994) the operating part of this judgement is produced as under:- "The liability of a trustee of a discretionary trust to be assessed to tax in respect of its income and to recovery thereof is created by section 161 and it also states that he is not liable to such assessment under any other provisions of the Act. Section 164 sets out only how suc…

Mrs. Sharon Nayak, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1594/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT

Section 161Section 17(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(i)Section 56(2)(vi)

…ITA.1594/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant PAN : ABKPN7007P v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CA Revenue by : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT Heard on : 05.05.2016 Pronounced on : 27.05.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :…