CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises

299 ITR 348High Court2008#8562 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(24)Section 234B Section 56(2)(vii)(b)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69 Section 69B

Judgments citing CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 391

…thora rulings of Madras High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.L. Ramanathan, [2003} 128 Taxman 87 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shanthi Chandran, (2003) 241 ITR 371 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kay Arr Enterprises, (2008) 299 ITR 348 and Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Baldev Raj Charla, (2009) 121 TN 366 (Delhi). Moreover, the period of holding of the shares has to be taken with reference to the year in which shares were first acquired by the previous owner and accordingly the benefit of indexation has to be allowed to the appella…

ABALABBA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri M M Golvala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 57(2)Section 69Section 698Section 69B

…rt of the list of assets (page 48 of PB serial no.12) to substantiate that the impugned transaction is carried out as part of family settlement. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kay ARR Enterprises and Ors (299 ITR 348) and CIT Vs. R. Ponnammal (164 ITR 706) in this regard and submitted the SLP against which are dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court (306 ITR 5). The ld. AR further submitted that the definition of "income" under section 2(24) of the Act does not cover the transaction where immovable property is purchased at a price lower than the market value fixed…

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

…favour of the another close relative is covered for exemption under s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises &Ors. (2008) 215 CTR (Mad) 244 : (2008) 3 DTR (Mad) 205 : (2008) 299 ITR 348 (Mad) and in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. R. Nagaraja Rao (2013) 352 ITR 565 (Kar) : (2012) 207 Taxman 236 (Kar) it has been categorically held that ‘where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred…

M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

SONI SONU MIRCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1286/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…es not constitute transfer. The assessee relied upon the following decisions : Ram Charan Cas vs., Girija Nandini Devi and Others 1. AIR 1966 SC 323. 2. Dewas Cine Corporation 68 ITR 240. 3. CIT vs., Bankey L1 Vaidya 79 ITR 594 4. CIT vs., Kay ARR Enterprises 299 ITR 348 3.5. The assessee, therefore, submitted that in the light of above settled position of Law, the amount received under the Family Settlement is not liable to tax under the Act. The assessee has furnished the bank statement evidencing the receipt of owelty amount in pursuance to the Family Settlement. The assessee has requested for exclusion of the…

INTERNATIONAL CARGO TERMINALS & RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BOXTRANS LOGISTRICS (INDIA) SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed with application of section 41(1) to cessation of liability, pursuant to a family settlement; 35 I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 M/s International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ii) It had been held in CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. (2008) 299 ITR 348 (Mad) that a family arrangement does not give rise to any income. The principle is that a family arrangement represents working out of rights because earlier what belonged to the family as a whole is being divided between its Members. In the said case, the High Court had also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Maturi Pullaiah vs. Matur…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SRI Y VENKANA CHOUDARY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 272/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

…). Therefore, surrender of the rights of the close relatives in favour of the another close relative is covered for exemption u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises [2008] 299 ITR 348 and in the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao [2012] 21 taxmann.com 101/207 Taxman 236/[2013] 352 ITR 565 it has been categorically held that "where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred th…

KUMAR PAPPU SINGH,TANUKU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…es in favour of the another close relative is covered for 20 I.T.A. No.270 /Viz/2018 Sri Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku exemption u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises [2008] 299 ITR 348 and in the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao [2012] 21 taxmann.com 101/207 Taxman 236/[2013] 352 ITR 565 it has been categorically held that "where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred th…

VAANI ESTATES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1352/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1352/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Ito, No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Corporate Ward – 3(4), Abhiramapuram, Chennai Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecv0933A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, Sr

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"ी, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1352/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs The ITO, No.60, Old No.100, IV Street, Corporate Ward – 3(4), Abhiramapuram, Chennai Chennai – 600 018. PAN: AAECV0933A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Prabhu M…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. N.RAMACHANDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.35/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No.7/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: Sh. N. Devanathan, Advocate

Section 148

…the inequalities in the family settlement is not taxable as income. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ashwani Chopra (2013) 352 ITR 620 and judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Kay Aar Enterprises (299 ITR 348) and also the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Nagaraja Rao (352 ITR 565). The Ld.counsel further submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment of Madras High Court in Kay Aar Enterprises (supra) was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 306 ITR 5. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the receipt of…

JYOTI RAKESH KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mrs. Renu Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

…stances fall under the definition of sec. 2(47) of the IT Act. It was further submitted that it was a family settlement and following case laws were cited in support of that family settlement cannot be considered as a transfer u/s. 2(47). 1. Madras High court 299 ITR 348 Cit v Kay An enterprises and others (Annexure - 6) • Karnataka High court 21 Taxmann.com 101 CIT vs R Nagaraja Rao (Aiinexure - 7) • Smt. Vijaya Raje Scindia vs. ITO (ITA No. 2780(Bom/89) dated 17-12-1993. • H. H. Moharani Manekuraje Pawan vs. ITO (15 ITD 545(Indore), • Mohd. Haroon Japanwala vs. ITO (22 lTD 61) Delhi, • DCIT, Spl. Rg. 46 vs. Sin…

SONAL A ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5968/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri V. Janardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

…angement property inherited by the assessee and relinquished rights whether amounts to transfer in relation to a capital asset and the Coordinate Bench following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises & Others [299 ITR 348] and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sachin B. Ambulkar 14 ITA.No.5968/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2007-08) Sonal A. Zaveri held that amount received by the assessee in terms of family settlement agreement cannot be treated on account of transfer of capital asset and cannot be said to chargeable tax under the head of capital gains…

THE HINDUSTAN LUNGI COMPANY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 618/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate

Section 45(4)

…ITA No.618/Mds/2016. :- 3 -: that dissolution of the partnership was a result of a family arrangement. As per the assessee its partners were brothers. Relying on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. 299 ITR 348, assessee submitted that a family arrangement in the form of a dissolution would not result in transfer. Further as per the assessee, dissolution deed dated 21.12.2006 clearly indicated that there was no distribution of capital assets. As per the assessee, there was only settlement of accounts and there was no transfer of capital assets. Furth…