CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

46 ITR 144Supreme Court of India1962#114 most cited

What is CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. authority for?

Income tax is levied only on real income that actually materializes, not on hypothetical or notional income, even if accounting entries suggest otherwise. If no income results, there is no tax liability.

551

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. · 46 ITR 144 · real income theory · notional income · hypothetical income · income tax levy · accrual of income · receipt of income · Section 48 · Income Tax Act 1961

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)Section 115JBSection 153ASection 1961Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

real income theoryright to receivemercantile system of accountingsection 48section 45section 35section 28loose papersliable to taxsection 145capital expendituresection 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

ACIT, Chennai vs. United India Insurance Company, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 696/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 36/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1693/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1691/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1689/CHNY/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09,

ITA 1688/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1673, 1688, 1689, 1691/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1693/Chny/2011, 36/Chny/2014 & 696/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. United India Insurance Co. Tax, V. Ltd., Large Tax Payer Unit, 24, Whites Road, Chennai – Chennai. 600 014. [Pan: Aaacu-5552-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, Ca Department Represented By : Shri. M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel & Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40Section 5(2)(b)

…xable territories would have to be decided having regard to the general principles as to where the income, profits or gains could be said to arise or accrue; 63. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (39 ITR 775) while dealing with the question as to whether a part of the managing agency commission earned by the assessee accrue or arise in the Cochin State inasmuch as the managing agency commission is computed on the basis of the freight earned by the managed company in the Cochin State have held that (a) the test is to find out where the business is actu…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

…the impugned order has correctly held that what has to be taxed is the amount received or accrued and not any notional or Page 14 of 18 hypothetical income. As observed by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/s. Shoorji Vallabdas and Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 “Income-Tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of its income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is income, if income does not result, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping an entry is made about a hypothetical in…

Allen Career Institute, Kota vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the Grounds No

ITA 54/JPR/2017[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2012-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…ewanyas no interest was chargeable on such advances. However, it appears that the ld. CIT(A) has not at all paid any attention to the submission. It is submitted that there can’t be any notional interest as held in the case of Shoorji Ballabh Das & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), and Rajasthan High Court in R. K. Verma (Supra) hence, this disallowance is bad in law. 2. Otherwise, there being sufficient interest free funds already available with the assessee as stated in the grounds no. 2 & 4, it can’t be said that there was borrowing made for this purpose also. Hence the impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in ful…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

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

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 246/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

ACIT, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi vs. Green Delhi Bqs Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3068/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Aashna Paul, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 36

…solvendum in futuro it cannot be said that any income has accrued to him. The mere expression "earned" in the sense of rendering the services etc., by itself is of no avail.” 16. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shoorji Vallabhdas and company 46 ITR 144 has held as under: “No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income, if income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even tough in book-keeping, an entry is made about a "hypothetica…

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

…he assessee a debt due by somebody it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him." We would also like to draw your attention to the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT VS Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co (46 ITR 144), wherein the following principle has been laid down: "Income-tax is levy of income, Though the Income-tax Act take into account two point in time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz, the accrual of the income or its receipt, yet the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, eve…

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

…2005-06, having regard to the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) and following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Excel Industries (219 Taxman 379), CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144) & Morvi Industries Ltd. (82 ITR 835) has held that only the license amount which has been actually utilized during the year that can be brought to tax u/s 28(iv) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as follows: “13. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal in treating the entire advance licence amount of Rs.95,60,000/…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mylan Developemtnt Centre P.Ltd ( Formelry Merck Development Centre P.Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

…2005-06, having regard to the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) and following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Excel Industries (219 Taxman 379), CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144) & Morvi Industries Ltd. (82 ITR 835) has held that only the license amount which has been actually utilized during the year that can be brought to tax u/s 28(iv) of the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as follows: “13. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal in treating the entire advance licence amount of Rs.95,60,000/…

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., Erode vs. DCIT Namakkal Circle, Namakkal

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

ITA 2835/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 243Section 244Section 244A

…determination of the assessments by the Income-Tax Authorities / Appellate Authorities. 2.2 The Learned CIT (A) failed to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of "Godhra Electricity Co Ld. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC), CIT Vs Shoori Vallabh Das Co 46 ITR 144, CIT Vs Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd." 2.3 The Learned CIT (A) failed to apply the decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1984-85 in ITA No. 2897 and 2898 (MDS/87) dated 14.11.1991 wherein it has been held that the interest granted would be assessable as income…

The JCIT(OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ecs Biztech Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1203/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2013-14 JCIT(OSD), M/s. ECS Biztech Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs Ahmedabad (Appellant) PAN: AAPCS0315J (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-05-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad i…

Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ VC, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 797/JP/2019 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s. Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti, Vs. (Exemptions), Sector-6, Pratap Nagar, Ward-1, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATA 6177 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. R…

M/S Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…of the assessee could be made 4 ITA Nos. 107 & 108/JP/2019. M/s. Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. without any express provision under Income Tax Act. To support his contention reliance is placed on the following judgments :- Shoorj Vallabh Das & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) CIT vs. VTC Leasing & Finance Ltd. 39 TW 211 (Raj. HC) Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) The ld. A/R further submitted that while making addition of Rs. 54,68,858/- on account of notional interest and disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 2,62,…

M/S Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…of the assessee could be made 4 ITA Nos. 107 & 108/JP/2019. M/s. Traditional Gallery Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. without any express provision under Income Tax Act. To support his contention reliance is placed on the following judgments :- Shoorj Vallabh Das & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) CIT vs. VTC Leasing & Finance Ltd. 39 TW 211 (Raj. HC) Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd. vs. ITO 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) The ld. A/R further submitted that while making addition of Rs. 54,68,858/- on account of notional interest and disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 2,62,…

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2800/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…ced reliance on the following rulings of the Apex Court:  M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] held that if payment is not assessable to tax there is no question of tax at source being deducted.  CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [46 ITR 144] held that mere entry in the books of the accounts does not establish the accrual of the income in the hands of the payee. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the appellant requests your goodself to allow the claim in the year in which the tax on such amount was actually paid as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 16 ITA Nos.…

M/S. Indecomm Global Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2799/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 40

…ced reliance on the following rulings of the Apex Court:  M/s GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. vs. CIT [327 ITR 456] held that if payment is not assessable to tax there is no question of tax at source being deducted.  CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [46 ITR 144] held that mere entry in the books of the accounts does not establish the accrual of the income in the hands of the payee. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the appellant requests your goodself to allow the claim in the year in which the tax on such amount was actually paid as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 16 ITA Nos.…