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.

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…ing to him, the Ld. Commissioner was not at all right in law in substituting his own view for the view taken by the Assessing Officer in the matter. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following orders: 1. CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144(SC) 2. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315(SC) 3. United Phosphorus Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 553(Ahd.) 11 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. 4. Asstt. CIT v. Premier Consolidated Capital Trust India Ltd. [2004] 4 SOT 793(Mum.) 5. Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. v. ITO [2005] 96 ITD 1(Mum.)(SB) 6. Order dated 16-5-2…

Mahesh Gordhandas Garodia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Maheshkumar Gordhandas Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Garodia, Income Tax 22(1) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Centre, Mumbai Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh S Garodia, Income Tax 27(2) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Mumbai Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing 10/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

Section 143(3)Section 55A

…to the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal in the impugned order has correctly held that what has to be taxed is the amount received or accrued and not any notional or hypothetical income. As observed by the Apex Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & 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…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri vs. The Jalpaiguri Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jalpaiguri

Appeal is allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

…and Tribunals, like a) CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd [(2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. b) CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd [293 ITR 357 (Mad)). c) CIT v KICM Investments (Cal) [310 ITR 4] wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. d) CIT v Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [,46 ITR 144 (SC)] e) TCL Finance Ltd v ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.). f) The Durga Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd v Department of Income Tax [Appeal 511 Vijag Tribunal vide order dated io" March, 2011]. ITA Nos.326 & 327/Kol/2017 The Jalpaiguri Central Co-operative Bank Ltd;. A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 4 g) Nadia District Cent Co-op. Bank Ltd. v Department of Income Tax…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri vs. The Jalpaiguri Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jalpaiguri

Appeal is allowed

ITA 326/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Rip Das, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 45Q

…and Tribunals, like a) CIT v Annamalai Finance Ltd [(2005) 275 ITR 451 (Mad)]. b) CIT v Elgi Finance Ltd [293 ITR 357 (Mad)). c) CIT v KICM Investments (Cal) [310 ITR 4] wherein SLP was dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. d) CIT v Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [,46 ITR 144 (SC)] e) TCL Finance Ltd v ACIT [(2004) 91 ITD 573 (Hyd.). f) The Durga Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd v Department of Income Tax [Appeal 511 Vijag Tribunal vide order dated io" March, 2011]. ITA Nos.326 & 327/Kol/2017 The Jalpaiguri Central Co-operative Bank Ltd;. A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 4 g) Nadia District Cent Co-op. Bank Ltd. v Department of Income Tax…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…be income unless income has actually resulted. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping an entry is made about a ‘hypothetical income.’ 24. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co., 46 ITR 144, Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1971) 82 ITR 363, Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd., (1973) 89 ITR 266, 273(SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., (1979) 116 1,5 supports our contention. Further recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Taparia Tools Ltd., dated 23/03/2015 reiterated the above principle. In view of the above, merely because retention m…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Chennai vs. Anil Sheth, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

ITA 1705/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Petchi, C.A
Section 2(47)Section 54F

…3-464 referred to various judgments on the expression “accrues”, and then held: “14. First of all, it is now well settled that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income. In CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC)] it was held as follows: (ITR p. 148) “... 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 receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1964/DEL/2001[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 3

…has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai, (1965) 56 ITR 42, CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co, (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhara Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore, reported in (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has not been treated to be correct enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhara Electric…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1963/DEL/2001[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 3

…has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai, (1965) 56 ITR 42, CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co, (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhara Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore, reported in (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has not been treated to be correct enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhara Electric…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2783/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2782/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2651/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2650/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2649/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…) statement. 70579 @ 10% on Rs. 4234750 for 2 months. Judgements relied upon:  CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) Held that the commission foregone cannot be taken as income on mercantile basis.  CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) Held that “income tax is a levy on income” . No doubt, Income Tax Act takes in to account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted viz. the accrual of income or its receipt or the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all there cannot be a tax, even though in book keeping , an entry is ma…

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

…3-464 referrred to various judgements on the expression ‘accrues’ and then held: “14. First of all, it is now well settled that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income. In CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. (CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC)] it was held as follows: (ITR p. 148) “.... 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 receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 478/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 Assessment Year :2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Tata Centre, 10th Floor, Ward-3(2), P-7, 43, Chowringhee Road, Chowringhee Square, 4th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [PAN No.AABCT 1389 B] DCIT, Circle-3(1), Tata Metaliks Ltd. Tat Centre, 10th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee V/s. Square, Aayakar 43, Chowringhee Bhawan, 4th Floor, Room Road, Kolkata-71 No.19, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant…

Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 439/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234C

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.439 & 478/Kol/2016 Assessment Year :2010-11 Tata Metaliks Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Tata Centre, 10th Floor, Ward-3(2), P-7, 43, Chowringhee Road, Chowringhee Square, 4th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [PAN No.AABCT 1389 B] DCIT, Circle-3(1), Tata Metaliks Ltd. Tat Centre, 10th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee V/s. Square, Aayakar 43, Chowringhee Bhawan, 4th Floor, Room Road, Kolkata-71 No.19, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…ve not been rejected. In such circumstances the AO cannot resort to a process of estimating income of the Assessee. 19. The learned counsel for the Assessee referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case relating to AY 1948-49 corresponding to the previous year ending 31.3.1948. The Assessee was managing agent of two shipping companies and was entitled to receive commission at 10% of the freight received as commission. For the relevant ITA Nos.202 & 693/B/18 11 previous year the books of a…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 865/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananathan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…rinciple that income- tax is not leviable on hypothetical income. No income can be taxed unless otherwise accrued and realized. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144)(SC) and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT (225 ITR 746)(SC). This issue was settled by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT (183 ITR 200). In the light of these judgments, we hold that no income can be taxed on notional basis unless and otherwise income accrued to the assessee.” Respectfully following the dec…

Bombay Forgings Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2184/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrir. C. Shrma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2015(Ay 2007-08)

For Appellant: Ms. ArjuGarodia, DR byFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram / Ms
Section 45(2)

…cannot be considered as part C.O. No. 59/Mum/2017 Bombay Forgings Ltd of 'full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer" in term r of section 48 of the income-( ox Act, 1961. Reliance was placed in CIT v. 5hoorjiVal1abhdas[1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) From the above fact it is clear that the appellant has rightly claimed Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 6,02,60,134/-." Apart from above, Ld. AR submitted that assessee being a public limited company was a sick unit declared by BIFR upto 31.03.07. The BIFR sanctioned a scheme of Rehabilitation which was subsequently modified and as per the mo…