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.

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.3317/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.3318/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2014-2015 ITA No.3319/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and The Asst.Commissioner of Brothers, Mine Owners, P.B.No.4, Income-tax, Circle – 1 v. Nehru Co-operative Colony Bellary – 583 103. Hosapete – 583 201. PAN : AACFG6895M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate Respondent by :Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Date of Hearing :…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.3317/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 ITA No.3318/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2014-2015 ITA No.3319/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/s.Gogga Gurusanthaiah and The Asst.Commissioner of Brothers, Mine Owners, P.B.No.4, Income-tax, Circle – 1 v. Nehru Co-operative Colony Bellary – 583 103. Hosapete – 583 201. PAN : AACFG6895M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, Advocate Respondent by :Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Date of Hearing :…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

…le amount as taxable during this year. He also relied on the following decisions:- i. Umacharan Shaw & Bros. Vs CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) ii. CIT vs A. Raman & Compnay 1968 AIR 49, 1969 SCR(1) 10(SC) iii. CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) iv. CIT vs Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. 1974 AIR 1358, 1973 SCR(3) 952 (SC) v. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746/139(SC) vi. Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla &b Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) vii. A.S. Sivan Pillai vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) viii. ITO vs W.D.Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473(Mum. Trib.) ix. A…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Solapur vs. Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 908/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.907 & 908/PUN/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Solapur .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sahakari Bank Niyamit, 340-A, Sakhar Peth, Solapur – 413005 PAN : AAATS5386B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan सुनवाई की ता…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Solapur vs. Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Solapur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 907/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.907 & 908/PUN/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Solapur .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sahakari Bank Niyamit, 340-A, Sakhar Peth, Solapur – 413005 PAN : AAATS5386B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Mahadevan A.M. Krishnan सुनवाई की ता…

The Sindhudurg Dist Central Co.Op Bank Ltd, Sindhudurg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 378/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 43D

…overed by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Solapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., 428 ITR 306. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying on the decision in case of (i) CIT v. Shoorji Vallabahdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC), (ii) Pr. CIT v. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 324/[2016] 242 Taxman 60/72 taxmann.com 117 (Guj.), (iii) Pr. CIT v. Sarangpur Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 302/258 Taxman 230/97 taxmann.com 304 (Guj.) and (iv) Pr. CIT v. Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 81 (Punj. & Har.) on the issue o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Samira Reality Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and 19

ITA 1754/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sumoguan Pal
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)

…on the real income of the assessee as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT ( 279 ITR 434). This proposition was also enunciated In IT vs. Bind Gwalior (P) Ltd. 89 ITR 265 (SC) and In CIT vs. Shoorfi Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC). Recently Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Hariram Bhambhani (ITA No. 313 of 2013) held that the entire sale cannot be subject to tax and only net income out of the sales 10 Samira Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. can be taxed under the provisions of IT Act.” 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) obs…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Legend Developers & Constructions, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 752/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Jayaramudu (HUF), Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 750/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Jayaramudu (Ind), Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 749/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Nirmala, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 748/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool vs. Agnur Janakiram, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 747/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Kurnool vs. Legend Developers & Constructions, Kurnool

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 743/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Narayana Murthy Naik
Section 143(3)

…on real income only and not on hypothetical income. CASE LAWS ON LEVY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON HYPOTHETICAL INCOME 1. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 46 ITR 144 SC 2. Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro on 18 December, 1998 3. Supreme Court of India The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd .••• vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, on 3 April, 1997 7. The only Ground of Appeal arises on account of addition of income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on the basis of statement give…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune vs. Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2250/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 145(1)

…advances as well as principal amount of the advances. The 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT, 237 ITR 889 held that no hypothetical income can be brought to tax. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co., 46 ITR 144 (SC) laid down the principle that what can be taxed is only a real income, in respect of which the right to receive income had accrued, the same principle was reiterated in the case of UCO Bank (supra). Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of CIT vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar, 410 ITR 244 while considering the issue in the context of ta…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6423/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

…llant claim it as its own income. Applying the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest earned on FDs made out of unutilised grants cannot be considered as income of the appellant. 5.1.10 In the case of CIT v/s. Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co., 46 ITR 144, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the Judgements given by the Supreme Court in other matters, has held as follows - "Income tax is a levy on income. 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 receipts; but the substance of the ma…

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ev Woolen Mills, 149 Taxman 431 28. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 58 taxmann.com 179. (Bom) 29. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 27 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai ITAT) 30. Lok Housing & Construction ltd., 70 taxmann.com 2 (SC) 31. Shoorji Vallabhdas & CO., [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) 32. Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 33. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 23 34. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., 140 ITR 705 (Mad.) 35. C. Radhakrishna Kumar, ITA No. 295/Hyd/2012 36. Industrial Roadways, [2008] 112 ITD 293 (Mum.) 37. N. Sasikala, 151 Taxman 42 (Chennai ITAT) 38. Lokesh Agarwal, ITA No. 1021/Hyd/201…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ozone India Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2081/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R
Section 56(2)(viib)

…ng the stock at market value does not and cannot bring in any real profit which is necessary for taxing the income. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. [89 ITR 266] and CIT, Bombay City 1 Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. in 46 ITR 144 has laid down that it is the real income which is taxable under the Income Tax Act and not the notional one like on revaluation of assets. The Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. CIT Vs. M.CT.M Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [221 ITR 524] relying on the decision of Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Leena Sarabhai [221 ITR…

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motor P Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/245/2018HC Karnataka24 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40a

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.245 OF 2018 BETWEEN: M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR (P) LTD., A LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.1 BIDADI IND. AREA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562109 REP. HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADV.,) AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085.…

M/S Saraf Export Palace vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/268/2018HC Rajasthan19 Mar 2021

Bench: SABINA,MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

ACIT-21(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Santosh Enterprise, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5887/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Santosh Enterprises Income Tax-21(3) 1, Manshanti Chs Ltd., Room No.209, 2Nd Floor D.L.Vaidya Road Piramal Chambers Dadar (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 12 Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaafs1100K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 43C

…n the dissolution of 14 M/s. Santosh Enterprises the firm where there was no continuation of the business of the firm. The facts of the present case are entirely different. As held in the judgments of the Apex Court in cases of CIT vs. Surji Vallabhdas & Co [46 ITR 144 (SC)] and CIT vs. A. Raman & Co. [67 ITR 11(SC), only real income can be taxed in contrast to the notional income. The Ld. AR has also highlighted that the observation of the AO to the effect that even as per section 43CA, stamp duty value had to be adopted, is also incorrect. It is argued that section 43CA would have no applicability in the prese…