How many judgments cite CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.?

551 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 153A.

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 366,470 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 147 Section 148 Section 37(1)Section 115JB Section 153A Section 1961 Section 14A

Issues it is cited on

real income theory right to receive mercantile system of accounting section 48 section 45 section 35 section 28 loose papers liable to tax section 145 capital expenditure section 37(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.

The DCIT 3(1) vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

ITA 2654/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

…96) 133 CTR 326 (Del), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. -vs- Asst. CIT (1993) 45 ITD 22 (Cal.)(SB), Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. -vs.- Dy. CIT (1994) 51 ITD 447 (Del), CIT -vs.- India Discount Company Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 191(SC), CIT -vs.- Mis Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. -vs.- CIT (1979} 116 ITR 1 (SC). As regards the decision relied upon by the A.O., the appellant submitted that the said decision was in relation to an investment company, which has no application in the case of the appellant. 16.3 I have perused the submission made by the appellant and the relevant provisions of…

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG3(1)

ITA 2524/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, four appeals of the assessee for AY: 2006-07 & 2008-

ITA 868/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CAFor Respondent: Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT

Section 201Section 201(1)

…the hands of the deductee, so 3 ITA Nos.868 to 874(Bang)2015 no TDS should be deducted. He also submitted that reliance is being placed on the following judicial pronouncements; i) E.D Sason & Co., Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 27(SC) ii)Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co Vs CIT 46 ITR 144(SC) iii) CIT Vs Birla Gwalior Pvt.Ltd 89 ITR 266(SC) iv) CIT Vs WExcel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295(SC) v) State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT 158 ITR 102(SC) vi) Morvi Industries Ltd., Vs CIT 82 ITR 835 (SC) vii) Godhara Electricity Co.Ltd.,CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) viii) M/s P.G & W.Sawoo Pv.Ltd., Vs ACIT in Civil appeal No.4091 of 2016 arising out of SL…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

ITA 1549/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: The Special Bench:

…agrining of interest on loan advanced to its associated enterprises. Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, where there is no income, there cannot be any tax. He then refers to judicial precedents in the cases of CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co [(1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC)], CIT Vs Arihant Avenues and Credit Ltd [(2013) 217 taxmann.com 105 (Guj)] and Shivnandan Buildcon Pvt Ltd Vs CIT [(2015) 60 taxmann.com (Del)] in support of the proposition that notional interest cannot be brought to tax. Learned counsel then takes us through Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of SA Builders Ltd Vs CIT [(2007) 288…

Divine Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2006–07, 2008–

ITA 104/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…may also be made to its decisions in K.C.P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 421 (SC); P. Mariappa Gounder vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 2 (SC); CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC); and CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC). 3.3 In the facts of the instant case, a part of the money on which interest is being claimed is by way of borrowed capital while the balance represents the unpaid purchase price of shares. The parties making the purchases on behalf of the assessee are not in the business of financing, so that the amount could only be considered as a debt, ar…

Mill Consultants & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2792/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…icity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC); CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC); R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC); CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC); and H. M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bom). Reliance was also placed on the Accounting Standard (AS-I) notified by the Board u/s. 145(2) of the Act, which requires adoption of the accounting policies as would represent a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the reporting enterprise as at the valuation date. ‘…

Universal Industrial Fund Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C Ircle- 6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…not represent income which had really accrued to the assessee company during the relevant previous year.” In the said judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the following observations made by it earlier in the case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [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 the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or it receipt but the substance of the matter is income. If income does not result at all. There cannot be a tax even though in book keeping, an entry is made about a hypo…

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-company is allowed

ITA 3/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘Te’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant Pan: Aabct 7374 C Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Ltu)(Tds) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 133(6)Section 201Section 250

…ext accounting year goes to show that there was no income accrued. Mere entries in the books of accounts does not establish the accrual of income in the hands of the payee as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 wherein it was held as follows; “ That the subsequent agreement had altered the rate of commission in such a way as to make the income which really accrued to the assessee different from what had been entered in the books of account. This was nota case of a gift by the assessee to the managed companies of a portion of income which had already accr…

The Commissoner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Alpha Thought Technologies P Ltd

ITTA/191/2011HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s a well settled principle of taxation that no income can be taxed on hypothetical basis and only real income can be brought to tax under the Income Tax Act. For this proposition, kind reference is invited to the following cases: (i) Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (iii) CIT V/s Raman & Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT (iv) UCO Bank V /s CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC) (v) Airports Authority of India V / s CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del)] It is reiterated that as a shareholde…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is treated as

ITA 1583/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Mar 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Kumar, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Rukmani Attri, JCIT

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 95

…xt accounting year goes to show that there was no income accrued. Mere entries in the books of accounts does not establish the accrual of income in the hands of the payee as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 wherein it was held as follows; “ That the subsequent agreement had altered the rate of commission in such a way as to make the income which really accrued to the assessee different from what had been entered in the books of account. This was nota case of a gift by the assessee to the managed companies of a portion of income which had already acc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 518/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.C.GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…notional income. The AR further submitted that no interest 6 The Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. would be set to have accrued on the loans of doubtful recovery and the AR relied on various case laws which are as under:- (1) CIT V Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 (SC) [1962] (2) CIT Vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), 2011 (3) DIT Vs Brahmaputra Capital Financial Services Ltd, 335 ITR 182 (Delhi), 2011 ITA NO. 2537/Del/2012 (4) TRO Vs Custodian, 293 ITR 369 (Del) (5) Barkha Investment & Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, 281 ITR 31 (Guj) (6) CIT Vs Nanital Bank Ltd, 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhand) (7) CIT Vs…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2863/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Chandra Sharma, CIT- DR

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…e assessee but the Learned CIT(Appeals) has accepted the same with this finding that it is a settled principle of law that only real income is to be taxed. In this regard, he has followed the ratios laid down in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Ballabdass & Co., 46 ITR 144 (S.C). We thus do not find reason to interfere with the First Appellate Order in this regard. The same is upheld. The ground No. 3 is accordingly rejected. 23. In result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 24. The assessee ( ITA No. 2240/Del/2010) on the other hand has basically questioned the First Appellate Order mainly on two g…

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. L/H of Smt. Vimla Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 3361/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3361/Mum/14 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer-16 Shri Ashok Mehta, L/H Of (L) Smt. Vimla Ratilal (1)(3) Vs. Mehta, 201, Jeevan Villa, Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, N Dhabholkar Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400006 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 69

…the Tribunal and no question of law arose and no reference would lie from the decision of the Tribunal." 2.4.35 It is now well settled that income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) it was 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 receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-kee…

D.C.I.T. 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gns Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 219/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.219/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ The Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), M/S. Gns Outsourcing Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 4Th Floor, Paville House, Twin Tower, Off Veer Savarkar Marg, Parabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 0400Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 8.10.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :21 .10.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-7, Mumbai Dated 24.9.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grievances Of The Revenue Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram

…unt itself was in doubt, there was no logic in crediting interest by the assessee. The FAA further drew support from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 225 ITR 746 and CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. 46 ITR 144 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “Income tax is levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability of tax 5 ITA. No.219/M/2013 is attracted viz., the accrual of income or its receipt, but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Vaish Co-Operative Adarsh Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of merits is

ITA 3310/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Danday, ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Bhatt, Advocate

Section 80P(2)(a)

…he notional income. The assessee also submitted that no interest would be said to have accrued to the assessee on the loans of doubtful recovery and the assessee also relied on various case laws some of which are as under:- (1) CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 (SC) [1962] (2) CIT Vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, 330 ITR 440 (Delhi), 2011 (3) DIT Vs Brahmaputra Capital Financial Services Ltd, 335 ITR 182 (Delhi), 2011 (4) TRO Vs Custodian, 293 ITR 369 (Del) (5) Barkha Investment & Trading Co P Ltd Vs CIT, 281 ITR 31 (Guj) (6) CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd. 309 ITR 335 (Uttarakhand) (7) CIT vs Elgi Finance Ltd. 29…

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. JCIT Range-32

ITA 2000/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’Ble, Shri G.C. Gupta, Vp & Shri R.S. Syal Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

…ng of income. Our view gets strength from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. SMIFS Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC), which reiterates similar view taken in several earlier judgments including CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC). As such, we jettison this contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue as a reason for sustaining the disallowance of interest. 22. We sum up our conclusion on the point that the assessee did not incur any liability for payment of interest to Alimenta as at the end of the years under consideration. Since no legally enforceable liability e…

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd vs. JCIT Range-32

ITA 1999/DEL/2008[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Dev Darshan Sud, Hon’Ble, Shri G.C. Gupta, Vp & Shri R.S. Syal Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Ericsson Communications Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2002HC Delhi04 Sept 2015

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Madan and Mr Zoheb HossainFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank

Section 195Section 201Section 23Section 260A

…es by their understanding and conduct are ad-idem that no liability to pay any amount arises, it would not be open for the Revenue to insist on collection of any tax. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I v. M/s Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 the Supreme Court had considered the case where the Assessee firm was a managing 2015:DHC:7339-DB ITA 106/2002 Page 22 of 24 agent of inter alia two shipping companies and as per its agreements with the concerned shipp…