CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala

259 ITR 10Supreme Court of India2003#4723 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala authority for?

Income that is passed on to a third party after receipt, in discharge of an obligation, is considered an application of income, not a diversion of income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala · application of income · diversion of income · discharge of obligation · section 10(20A) · section 10(20) · section 11 · section 12 · section 12AA

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 58purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala

ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 45

…igh Court ) 8) PCIT vs.Rinki Shashikant Gandhi (ITA No.826 of 2023 (Gujarat High Court). 9) Shroff Eye Centre (ITA No.1560/Del/2012) ITAT Delhi 10) Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) (S.C) Real Income Theory 11) RSM & Co. (125 ITFD 243) 12) Sunil J. Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) (S.C) 13) Nariman Bhurncha & Son (130 ITR 863)(Bom) 14) CIT vs. M/s. Shoorgi VBallabh Das & Co. (46 ITR 144(S.C) 15. ACIT vs. Emaar MGF Constructions (P) Ltd (ITA No.1734/Del/2016) ITAT Delhi. 16) Dinesh Vazi Rani – 445 ITR 110 (Bom) 17) Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) through legal representative vs. CIT (4504ITR 136) (Del.) 18) CIT vs. Shakuntla Kant…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ding title, but when after the receipt of the income, the same is passed on to a third person in discharge of the obligation of the assessee, it would be a case of application of income and not diversion of income as held in CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathaldas 41 ITR 367 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the true test was whether the amount sought to be deducted in truth never reached the assessee as his income. The Hon’ble Court had held that there was a different between…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ding title, but when after the receipt of the income, the same is passed on to a third person in discharge of the obligation of the assessee, it would be a case of application of income and not diversion of income as held in CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathaldas 41 ITR 367 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the true test was whether the amount sought to be deducted in truth never reached the assessee as his income. The Hon’ble Court had held that there was a different between…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ding title, but when after the receipt of the income, the same is passed on to a third person in discharge of the obligation of the assessee, it would be a case of application of income and not diversion of income as held in CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathaldas 41 ITR 367 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the true test was whether the amount sought to be deducted in truth never reached the assessee as his income. The Hon’ble Court had held that there was a different between…

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs. ClT [1933J 1 ITR 135 (PC); P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938J 6 ITR 206 (PC); ClT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961J 41 lTR 367 (SC) and Vibhuti Glass Works vs. ClT [1989J 177 lTR 439 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala [2003 J 259 ITR 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after referring to various precedents on the subject, explained the aforesaid expression in the following manner: "When a third person becomes entitled to receive the amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could lay a claim to receive it as his income, there would be diversion of income by overrid…

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1495/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147Section 148

…thout disposing of the objections of the assessee to the reason recorded u/s 147 of the Act, by a speaking order, which is completely in disregarded to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2002) 259 ITR 10 (SC). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision of Expected Loss of Rs. 13,68,30,422/-. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, change, vary substitute or raise a…

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 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

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

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

…e towards SPV for R & R plans of mining areas. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI…

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

…e towards SPV for R & R plans of mining areas. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI…

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

…e towards SPV for R & R plans of mining areas. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…CIT v. Gyan Enterprises Pvt. LTd. in ITA No.940/2016 dt. 17.5.2018 (Delhi HC). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by department in SLP No.17347/2019 dated 3.7.2019. (7) Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1 (SC) (8) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) (9) Poddar Projects Ltd. v. CIT, 28 taxmann.com 94 (Cal) (10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Fe…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…CIT v. Gyan Enterprises Pvt. LTd. in ITA No.940/2016 dt. 17.5.2018 (Delhi HC). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by department in SLP No.17347/2019 dated 3.7.2019. (7) Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1 (SC) (8) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) (9) Poddar Projects Ltd. v. CIT, 28 taxmann.com 94 (Cal) (10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Fe…

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…e towards SPV for R & R plans of mining areas. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on following decisions in support: (a) CIT vs. SitaldasTirathdas (1961)(41 ITR 367)(SC) (b) Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT (1991)(190 ITR 1)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (2003)(259 ITR 10)(SC) (d) CIT vs. Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing & Export Corporation Ltd (2015)(377 ITR 496)(Kar) (e) CIT vs. United Breweries Ltd (2010)(321 ITR 546)(Kar) (f) CIT vs. A Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd (1987)(166 ITR 867)(Kol) (g) Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (h) Sri T Jayachandran vs. DCIT (2012-TIOL-977-HC-MAD-IT) (i) FR Sabu P Thomas vs. UOI…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…ted by overriding title on the specific wording of the document that the amount was to be paid by the assessee from the income of the assessee and therefore the cited decision is not applicable in the present case on hand. (v) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala[2003] 259 ITR 10/126 Taxman 161 (SC) This decision turned on its peculiar facts and is not applicable to the case under consideration. (vi) Associated Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1996] 218 ITR 195/84 Taxman 355 (SC) In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was no diversion of income as the assessee is in control of the money and merely because restriction w…

THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2428/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

…in the appellant's case, the interest income has not been paid to the Central Government by the appellant company. Thus, the ratio of the said decision is found to be not applicable to the appellant's case. In the case of CIT -vs.- Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10, the Apex Court, after referring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria -vs. - CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick -vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar -vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Laljain (supra); CIT -Vs.- Ba…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & I.T.A. No. 386/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited,.................Appellant (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board), Bidyut Bhawan, Sector-II, Block-DJ, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 091 [PAN:AAACW6953…

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & I.T.A. No. 386/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 150/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Limited,.................Appellant (Formerly West Bengal State Electricity Board), Bidyut Bhawan, Sector-II, Block-DJ, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700 091 [PAN:AAACW6953…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 74/137 DIAGEO which will distract the Income-Tax liability in the hands of the Assessee. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2003 in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) again succinctly dealt with the earlier case laws on the issue of ‘Diversion of Income by over riding title at source’ and in a case where the Assessee, a partner in a Firm having 10% share in the profits of the Firm, created a Trust by a Deed of Settlement assigning 50% of his 10% share of profits in favour of that Trust of which his o…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 74/137 DIAGEO which will distract the Income-Tax liability in the hands of the Assessee. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2003 in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala [2003] 259 ITR 10 (SC) again succinctly dealt with the earlier case laws on the issue of ‘Diversion of Income by over riding title at source’ and in a case where the Assessee, a partner in a Firm having 10% share in the profits of the Firm, created a Trust by a Deed of Settlement assigning 50% of his 10% share of profits in favour of that Trust of which his o…

ZEE BANGLES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.494/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Zee Bangles बिधम/ Ito Ward 18(3)(5) 3Rd Floor Earnest House 148, L.K. Mkt, Zaveri Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai- Bazar, Mumbai-400002. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafz3532C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Impugned Assessment Order Is Patently Illegal Passed In Violation Of Provisions Of Section 143(2), Non-Compliance Of Mandate Given By Hon. Sc [259 Itr 10 Pg. & Non-Compliance Of Principle Of Natural Justice & Thus Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234CSection 27lSection 69C

…AY. 2009- 10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances and in law, the impugned assessment order is patently illegal passed in violation of provisions of section 143(2), non-compliance of mandate given by Hon. SC [259 ITR 10 pg. and non-compliance of principle of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. ITA. No.494/M/17 A.Y.2009-10 2. In the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. AO erred in adding Rs.78,19,735/- u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure and thus the said addition is l liable to be 3. In the facts arid circumstances and in law. the Ld…

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 997/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Parekh Vora Ward-2(1)(2), बनाम/ Chambers, 66, Nagindas Mumbai. Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcc 2192 B

…nder the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) 3 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company and later paid out. No business expediency has been explained for diversion of income to…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2