CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust

271 ITR 159High Court2004#3943 most cited
30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 160Section 164Section 167BSection 2(29C)Section 250Section 4

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of righttest of enduring benefitsection 10(2)(xv)business transfer agreementnon-compete feesection 2(31)slump salesection 51going concernsection 40a(2)(b)section 40a(2)beneficial owner

Judgments citing CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

…g judicial pronouncements: i) CIT v. Shri Krishna Bhandar Trust 201 ITR 989 (Calcutta High Court) [1993] ii) Nizam's Family Trust 108 ITR 555 (Supreme Court) iii) LR Patel Family Trust v. ITO 262 ITR 520 (Bombay High Court) iv) CIT V S.A.E. Head Office Trust 271 ITR 159 (Delhi High Court) v) DIT V. Shardaben Maftalal Trust 247 ITR 1 (Bombay High Court) 4. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) examined the matter. It was argued before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) that the surcharge should be levied on the basis of the income and written submissions were filed relying upon the following decisions: i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissio…

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)

…of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2)…

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)

…of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of an individual, since all its beneficiaries were individuals. Further, as per ld. JCIT, if Sec. 56(2)…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 53 / 2000HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 247 / 2002HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

CIT vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 842 / 2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1198 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1183 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO.P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1191 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

C.I.T vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 731 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 482 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 361 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO.P.LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1207 / 2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/731/2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1198/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1183/2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/842/2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/45/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/50/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA/1207/2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

…say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries do not set up a trust and the trustees derive their authority under the terms of the deed of the trust. Therefore neither the trustees nor the beneficiaries could be said to have come together for a common purpose. The beneficiaries merely enjoy the benefit of the trust whereas the function of the trustees is to administe…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2