CIT v. Sanderson & Morgaon

75 ITR 433High Court1970#18246 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sanderson & Morgaon

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cooper Standard Automotive India P Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [Pan:Aabcc3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 05.01.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is As To Whether The Waiver Of Loan Amount Taken For Business Purposes Is Assessable As Business Income Under Section 28(Iv) R.W.S. 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…g Industries Ltd 35 ITR 519 also the additional amounts taken as deposits by the licensed whole sellers were integral part of the commercial transaction of the sale of liquor in bottles and they were assessee's trading receipts. In CIT v. Sandersons & Morgans 75 ITR 433 concerning interest received by a solicitor on the amounts belonging to his clients were not trading receipts being held in fiduciary capacity. In Pioneer Consolidated 5 I.T.A. No. 794/Chny/16 Company of India Ltd v. CIT 104 ITR 686 the unclaimed surplus of customers was treated as income in the hands of the assessee and were shown as such by it…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…Government. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on certain case laws viz. (i) Morley Vs. Tatter Stall (1939) 7 ITR 316 (CA); (ii) Brown Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1965) 57 ITR 729 (HL); (iii) Sandersons and Morgans Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 433 (Cal); (iv) CIT Vs. Tanubhai D. Desai (1972) 84 ITR 713 (Bom); and (v) Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Vs. DCIT (1996) 221 ITR 317 (Guj). In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that as the government had only vested the possession of the lands with the assessee corporation, hence only a fiduciary relationship…

Shri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 86/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Sri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

…iture received by the assessee for the purpose of rendering services cannot form part of the total income. Therefore, it has to be excluded. 22. We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Sanderson & Morgaon (1970) 75 ITR 433. In the case before the Calcutta High Court a firm of socilicitors received money from their clients. The question arose before the Calcutta High Court was whether the money received by the solicitors in the course of their professional activities would form part of the total income or not. The Calcutta High Court held that the money received by t…

The ACIT, Guntur vs. M/S. Veera Associates, Guntur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/VIZ/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Feb 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deba Kumar SonowalFor Respondent: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 40Section 40a

…ture received by the assessee for the purpose of rendering services cannot form part of the total income. Therefore, it has to be excluded. 22. We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Sanderson & Morgaon (1970) 75 ITR 433. In the case before the Calcutta High Court a firm of socilicitors received money from their clients. The question arose before the Calcutta High Court was whether the money received by the solicitors in the course of their professional activities would form part of the total income or not. The Calcutta High Court held that the money received by t…

ACIT, Circle - 54, Kolkata vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata

ITA 2137/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Advoate ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…by they are deferring the tax liabilities and enjoying the said advances without paying tax?” Page 2 & 3 of the order: - “It is submitted by Mr. J.P Khaitan that the issue involved is covered by the judgment in CIT, West Bengal-I –vs. Sandersons & Morgans: 75 ITR 433 (Cal). In support of his submission, he has referred to a paragraph of the said judgment, which specifically deals with issue in the following manner: “On the other hand, he submitted, when money was made over to the solicitor, in the instant case, the solicitor received the money as trading receipt. That character he submitted, was impressed upo…