CIT v. Smt. Prabha Debi Bagaria

192 ITR 416High Court1991#13097 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also reported as

51 Taxmann.com 506

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 35AD Section 35AD(7B)Section 14A Section 35AD(7A)Section 69A Section 143(3)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)section 35ad commercial substance nav method resulting company transferee company wholly and exclusively for business transferor company dcf method scheme of arrangement depreciation on goodwill slump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Prabha Debi Bagaria

ACIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Trishul Realty Infra LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the COs filed by the Assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7649/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7649/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2012-13 ACIT- CC 7(3) Vs Trishul Reality Infra LLP Room No. 655, 6th Floor, . Office No.1, 2nd Floor, 3, Aayakar Bhavan, MK Patel Bhuvan, 29, Vijay Road, Wadi, Dr. N.N. Shah Lane, Mumbai-400020 Chira Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 PAN – AADCT0412D (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 33/Mum/2026 (Arising out of ITA No. 7649/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 Trishul Reality Infra LLP Vs ACIT- CC 7(3) Office No.1, 2nd Floor, 3, Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Patel Bhuva…

ITO Ward 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vanguard Jewels Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3600/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito Ward-13(3)(1) Vs. Vanguard Jewels R. No. 227, Aayakar Ltd, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Office No. 501, Churchgate, Mumbai- Adibaba Apartment, 400 020 Gazdar Scheme, 16 Th Road, Rajesh Khanna Garden, Santacruz(W), Mumbai-400 054 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv3480A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO Ward-13(3)(1) Vs. Vanguard Jewels R. No. 227, Aayakar Ltd, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Office No. 501, Churchgate, Mumbai- Adibaba Apartment, 400 020 Gazdar Scheme, 16 th Road, Rajesh Khanna Garden, Santacruz(W), Mumbai-400 054 PAN/GIR No. AAACV3480A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: This appeal by revenue is directed ag…

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2228/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2016-17) ITA No.3937/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2019-20) Mahadhan AgriTech Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Formerly known as of Income Tax, Central Smartchem Technologies Circle 8(1), Mumbai Ltd.) Survey No.93, Sai Hira Mundhwa, Pune-411036 PAN/GIR No.AACCA5046P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy.Commissioner of Vs. Mahadhan AgriTech Income Tax, Central Limited Circle 8(1), Mumbai (Formerly known as Smartchem Technologies Ltd.) Survey N…

DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Mahadhan Agritech Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3569/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartchem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)--50, Mumai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2229/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…uble disallowance of the same expenditure. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions of various High Courts wherein it has been held the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of two persons. - CIT v. Smt. Prabha Debi Bagaria (1991) 192 ITR 416 (Cal. HC) - CIT v. Sobhrajmal (2014) 51 taxmann.com 506 (Raj. HC) 98. Without prejudice to above, the ld. AR submitted that even if the disallowance is made, it is submitted that since the amount of donation has been transferred by DFPCL to the assessee in view of the duly approved scheme of arrangement with effect from 01.01.2015, being the app…

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartech Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai.50, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

DCIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Export Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6327/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R

Section 133DSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. C1T (1969) 72 ITR 291(SC), where it has said that it is fundamental rule of the law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. In C1T v Prabha Debi Bagaria (1991) 192 ITR 416 (Cal) (EC) it was held as under: "6. In this particular case, the ITO had assessed the trust in respect of income of half portion of the property in respect of which assessment was already made upon the assessee with regard to his half portion of the property. Thus, the ITO taxed twice in respect of the same income with regard to the same propert…

DCIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Soex India Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Soex India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 656, Vs. 21St Floor, Nirmal Building, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R

Section 133DSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969) 72 ITR 291(SC), where it has said that it is fundamental rule of the law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. In CIT v Prabha Debi Bagaria [1991] 192 ITR 416 (Cal)(HC) it was held as under: "6. In this particular case, the ITO had assessed the trust in respect of the Income of half portion of the property in respect of which assessment was already made upon the assessee with regard to his half portion of the property. Thus, the ITO taxed twice in respect of the same income with regard to the same pro…