CIT v. Karthikeyan (G.R)

201 ITR 866Supreme Court of India1993#4147 most cited

What is CIT v. Karthikeyan (G.R) authority for?

The purpose of the inclusive definition of 'income' in Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act is to broaden its scope, meaning that even receipts not explicitly listed may still be considered income if they possess its nature.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Karthikeyan · G.R · 201 ITR 866 · SC · 1993 · Section 2(24) · income · inclusive definition · nature of income · profits and gains of business or profession · mercantile system of accounting

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)project completion methodright to receivesection 59section 2(24)profits and gains of business or professionmercantile system of accountingsection 30section 40a(3)on-moneyliable to taxsection 5(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Karthikeyan (G.R)

The ACIT, Kottayam vs. Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…T (A) ought to have seen that the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Travancore Rubbers & Tea Co. Ltd. reported in (1996) 221 ITR 585 (KER.) which in turn relied on the decision of Apex court in the case of CIT Vs. G.R. Karthikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 wherein discussed the definition of income in detail and held that the definition of income as in section 2(24) is of inclusive character, the purpose is not to limit the meaning of the term but to widen its net and even id a receipt did not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses, it might still be income if it partook the nature of the inco…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson
Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.7417/Mum/2010 & 7369/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2000-01 Cable Corporation of India Limited DCIT, Circle-2(1) 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Laxmi Building,6 Vs. ShoorjiVallabhdas Marg M.K.Road Ballard Estate Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 PAN: AAACC2936J (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Awungshi Gimson Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit Khatri Date of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Membe…

V.C. Nannapaneni vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata
Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ll attached to the “Products” in the “Territory” specified in the agreement and that as a pat of consideration for such transfer, it has been agreed that NATCO GROUP shall not carry on directly or 6 (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) 7 (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 12 indirectly the business hitherto in the “Territory” specified in the agreement. The agreement defined the word “Products”, as described in Annexure-I and the word “Territory” as Territory of Russia & CIS countries, including Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bel…

M/S Givo Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2041/Del/2013 (Assessment Year2006-07) Givo Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), C/o Vinod Kumar New Delhi Bindal & Co. C.A., Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar I, New Delhi – 110 095 GIR / PAN :AAACG3928L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Respondent by :Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the asses…

Diu Resorts P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4797/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Diu Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Ito-8(1)(3), Flat No.1404, B-29, Shastri Mumbai, बनाम/ Nagar, Opp. J.P. Road, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400029 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcd2843A

Section 143(1)

…s. I find that in this case, the Bench vide order dated 13th September, 2005, by following the decision in Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd and Ors. vs CIT (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC), Bhagwan Das Jain vs UOI 128 ITR 315 (SC) and CIT vs G. R. Karthikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) has concluded that credit of TDS has to be given in the relevant previous year, even though the assessee follows project completion method of accounting, thus, TDS, during financial year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000 had to be given credit for in that assessment year even though income was returned in sub-sequent assessment year 2000…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 27 of 33 award. 39. Reference can be made now to the widely acclaimed and often cited decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. G.R. Karthikeyan, (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC), where the assessed had income from various sources including salary and business. Earnings in the nature of prize money etc. for winning were held to be income. It was observed: “The idea behind providing inclusive definition in Section 2(24) is not to limit its meaning but to widen its net. This Court has repeatedly said that the wo…

Aroon Purie vs. Commr.of Income Tax

ITA - 232 / 2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 27 of 33 award. 39. Reference can be made now to the widely acclaimed and often cited decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. G.R. Karthikeyan, (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC), where the assessed had income from various sources including salary and business. Earnings in the nature of prize money etc. for winning were held to be income. It was observed: “The idea behind providing inclusive definition in Section 2(24) is not to limit its meaning but to widen its net. This Court has repeatedly said that the wo…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 27 of 33 award. 39. Reference can be made now to the widely acclaimed and often cited decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. G.R. Karthikeyan, (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC), where the assessed had income from various sources including salary and business. Earnings in the nature of prize money etc. for winning were held to be income. It was observed: “The idea behind providing inclusive definition in Section 2(24) is not to limit its meaning but to widen its net. This Court has repeatedly said that the wo…